San Antonio Airport System Strategic Development Plan AIRPORT MASTER PLAN VOLUME I – MASTER PLAN UPDATE CHAPTER 5 – DEMAND/CAPACITY AND FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

DECEMBER 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

5 DEMAND/CAPACITY ANALYSIS AND FACILITY REQUIREMENTS ...... 5-1

5.1 Airfield Facilities ...... 5-1 5.1.1 Runways Orientation and Number ...... 5-1 5.1.2 Airfield Geometry ...... 5-3 TABLE OF 5.1.3 Airfield Demand/Capacity Analysis ...... 5-17 5.1.4 Navigational Aids and Approach Procedures ...... 5-26 CONTENTS 5.1.5 Airspace Interactions ...... 5-26 5.1.6 Summary of Airfield Requirements ...... 5-27 5.2 Passenger Terminal Facilities ...... 5-28 5.2.1 Design Level Activity ...... 5-28 5.2.2 Aircraft Gates ...... 5-32 5.2.3 Passenger Terminal ...... 5-37 5.2.4 Terminal Curbs ...... 5-63 5.2.5 Technological Innovations in Passenger Terminals ...... 5-70 5.2.6 Summary of Terminal Requirements ...... 5-70 5.3 Air Cargo Facilities ...... 5-71 5.3.1 Integrated Express Facilities ...... 5-71 5.3.2 Belly Cargo (Passenger Airlines) ...... 5-72 5.3.3 Summary of Air Cargo Requirements ...... 5-73 5.4 General Aviation Facilities ...... 5-73 5.4.1 Fixed-Base Operator Facilities ...... 5-73 5.4.2 Aircraft Storage Facilities ...... 5-74 5.4.3 Technological Innovations in General Aviation ...... 5-74 5.4.4 Summary of General Aviation Requirements ...... 5-75 5.5 Aviation Support Facilities ...... 5-75 5.5.1 Airport Administration Facilities ...... 5-75 5.5.2 Airport Operations Facilities ...... 5-76 5.5.3 Aircraft Rescue And Firefighting Facilities ...... 5-76 5.5.4 Airport Maintenance Facilities ...... 5-77 5.5.5 Fuel Storage Facilities ...... 5-78 5.5.6 Aircraft Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Facilities ...... 5-79 5.5.7 Federal Aviation Administration Facilities ...... 5-80 5.5.8 Airline Catering Facilities ...... 5-80 5.5.9 Ground Support Equipment Staging, Storage and Maintenance Facilities ...... 5-80 5.5.10 Engine Maintenance Run-up Facility ...... 5-81 5.5.11 Compass Rose ...... 5-81 5.5.12 Airport Perimeter Fence and Security Gates ...... 5-81

Page | i December 2019 - DRAFT

5.5.13 Summary of Airport and Airline Support Requirements ...... 5-82 5.6 Landside Facilities ...... 5-83 5.6.1 Airport Roadway Access ...... 5-83 5.6.2 Automobile Parking ...... 5-100 5.6.3 Rental Car ...... 5-106 5.6.4 Technological Innovations in Airport Landside Facilities ...... 5-110 5.6.5 Summary of Landside Requirements ...... 5-111 5.7 Summary of Facility Requirements ...... 5-112

Page | ii December 2019 - DRAFT

Tables Table 5-1 | Annualized Runway Wind Coverage by Runway (All Weather) ...... 5-2 Table 5-2 | Runways 13-31 Seasonal Wind Coverage (All Weather) ...... 5-2 Table 5-3 | Proposed Airport Reference Code ...... 5-4 Table 5-4 | Airfield Design Standards...... 5-1 Table 5-5 | Runway Length Requirements ...... 5-4 Table 5-6 | Forecasted Temperature for San Antonio ...... 5-7 Table 5-7 | 787 Runway Length Requirement Considering Long-Term Climate Change ...... 5-8 Table 5-8 | Annual Number of Days with the Maximum Temperature above 100°F ...... 5-8 Table 5-9 | Existing Runway Protection Zones Off Airport Property ...... 5-11 Table 5-10 | Existing and Standard Taxiway Widths ...... 5-12 Table 5-11 | Taxiway Shoulder and Fillets Standards ...... 5-13 Table 5-12 | Characteristics of Existing Angled Taxiways .. 5-15 Table 5-13 | Aircraft Classification ...... 5-18 Table 5-14 | Fleet Mix ...... 5-20 Table 5-15 | Forecast Mix Index ...... 5-20 Table 5-16 | Peak Hour Operations and Calculated Hourly Capacity ...... 5-26 Table 5-17 | Forecast Design Hour Passengers ...... 5-31 Table 5-18 | Projected Aircraft Gate Demand – Annual Passengers per Gate Approach ...... 5-35 Table 5-19 | Projected Aircraft Gate Demand – Departures per Gate Approach ...... 5-36 Table 5-20 | Projected Aircraft Gate Demand ...... 5-36 Table 5-21 | Terminal Facilities Requirements ...... 5-40 Table 5-22 | Narrow-Body Equivalent Gate Index ...... 5-43 Table 5-23 | Equivalent Aircraft Index ...... 5-43 Table 5-24 | Average Seating Capacity and Holdroom Size ... 5- 45 Table 5-25 | Curb Modal Splits ...... 5-65 Table 5-26 | Peak Curb Demand Times ...... 5-65 Table 5-27 | Peak Curb Demand Ratios ...... 5-66 Table 5-28 | Existing Terminal Curb Conditions ...... 5-67 Table 5-29 | Curb Level of Service Criteria ...... 5-69 Table 5-30 | Terminal Curb Facility Requirements ...... 5-69 Table 5-31 | Integrated Express Facility Requirements ...... 5-72 Table 5-32 | Belly Cargo Facility Requirements ...... 5-73 Table 5-33 | Consolidated Fixed Base Operator Facility Requirements ...... 5-74 Table 5-34 | Corporate Aviation and General Aviation Storage Facilities Requirements ...... 5-74 Table 5-35 | Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Index Determination ...... 5-76 Table 5-36 | Vehicle Class Requirements ...... 5-77 Table 5-37 | Airport Maintenance Facility Requirements (in acres) ...... 5-78 Table 5-38 | Fuel Storage Requirements ...... 5-78 Table 5-39 | Consolidated Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Facility Requirements (in acres) ...... 5-80

Page | iii December 2019 - DRAFT

Table 5-40 | Signalized Intersection Delay and Level of Service ...... 5-88 Table 5-41 | Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Delay and Level of Service ...... 5-89 Table 5-42 | Total 2018 Parking Supply and Peak Occupancy ...... 5-101 Table 5-43 | Parking Generation per Passenger by Facility Type ...... 5-102 Table 5-44 | Forecast Peak Hour Passengers for San Antonio International Airport ...... 5-102 Table 5-45 | Peak Parking Demand Forecasts by Parking Facility ...... 5-103 Table 5-46 | Peak Parking Utilization Forecast by Parking Facility ...... 5-104 Table 5-47 | Approximate Forecasted Acreage Needed for Parking Supply by Facility...... 5-105 Table 5-48 | Rental Car Facility Requirements ...... 5-109

Page | iv December 2019 - DRAFT

Figures Figure 5-1 | Range Rings from San Antonio ...... 5-3 Figure 5-2 | Runway Length Requirements vs Existing Runway Length ...... 5-5 Figure 5-3 | Average Summer Daytime Maximum Temperature in San Antonio ...... 5-7 Figure 5-4 | Annual Number of Days with the Maximum Temperature above 100°F ...... 5-8 Figure 5-5 | Taxiways with Non-Compliant Widths ...... 5-13 Figure 5-6 | Taxiway Design Group-5 High-Speed Exit Taxiway Standard Geometry ...... 5-14 Figure 5-7 | Angled Exit Taxiways ...... 5-16 Figure 5-8 | Building Restriction Line Between Runways 13R-31L and 4-22 ...... 5-17 Figure 5-9 | Eastbound Runway Configuration ...... 5-19 Figure 5-10 | Westbound Runway Configuration ...... 5-19 Figure 5-11 | Northbound Runway Configuration ...... 5-19 Figure 5-12 | Total Annual Operations vs Airfield Capacity (Baseline Forecast) ...... 5-25 Figure 5-13 | Total Annual Operations vs Airfield Capacity (High-Growth Forecast) ...... 5-25 Figure 5-14 | Terminal A and B Peak Hour Scheduled Seats ...... 5-30 Figure 5-15 | Aircraft Parking Positions Requirements .... 5-33 Figure 5-16 | Active Gate Aircraft Parking Positions Requirements ...... 5-34 Figure 5-17 | Terminal Level of Service if Facilities are Sized for Level of Service ‘C’ ...... 5-38 Figure 5-18 | Checkpoint Queue Lengths Friday, June 8, 2018 ...... 5-55 Figure 5-19 | Checkpoint Queue Lengths Monday, June 11, 2018 ...... 5-56 Figure 5-20 | Jet Fuel-Day Supply Requirements ...... 5-79 Figure 5-21 | Year of 2028 Morning/Afternoon Peak Hour Volumes ...... 5-85 Figure 5-22 | Year of 2038 Morning/Afternoon Peak Hour Volumes ...... 5-85 Figure 5-23 | Year 2028 Morning/Afternoon Intersection Level of Service ...... 5-90 Figure 5-24 | Year 2038 Morning/Afternoon Intersection Level of Service ...... 5-91 Figure 5-25 | Year of 2040 V/C Ratios with Preliminary Proposed US 281/I-410 Interchange Improvements ...... 5-94 Figure 5-26 | SA Tomorrow Multimodal Transportation Plan: Scenario 2 Connectivity and Capacity 2040 Modeling Results ...... 5-95 Figure 5-27 | Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Planned Improvements ... 5-98 Figure 5-28 | VIA Vision 2040 Plan – Rapid Transit Corridors ...... 5-99 Figure 5-29 | Rental Car Activity Daily Totals ...... 5-107 Figure 5-30 | Rental Car Activity Pickups and Returns .. 5-108

Page | v December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements 5 DEMAND/CAPACITY ANALYSIS AND FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

The demand/capacity analysis assesses the capacity of Airport facilities, and defines what additional facilities are necessary to accommodate the projected demand through the planning horizon, based on the inventory of existing facilities and the approved FAA aviation forecasts. The functional areas analyzed in this chapter include: • Airfield (runway and taxiway design requirements, runway capacity, runway length); • Passenger terminal, including aircraft gates and apron, public parking and rental car facilities • Air cargo • General aviation • Aviation support • Landside

5.1 AIRFIELD FACILITIES This section outlines future airfield requirements to meet the long-term aviation demand defined in Chapter 4, Aviation Activity Forecasts. In addition to meeting the growing demand, the airfield should accommodate aircraft types expected to operate at the airport through the planning horizon. The main drivers of the analysis are the following factors: • Capacity and safety of existing facilities • Climate (wind coverage and temperature) • Future activity and profile of aviation demand • Projected fleet mix (and aircraft characteristics)

5.1.1 RUNWAYS ORIENTATION AND NUMBER

RUNWAY ORIENTATION An analysis of wind coverage allows to determine the most advantageous orientation of runways required at an airport, by calculating the percentage of time certain crosswind values (10.5, 13, 16 and 20 knots) are not exceeded for each runway orientation. The desirable wind coverage for an airport is 95 percent. Two runways may be required to achieve the desired 95 percent wind coverage for the critical aircraft. A wind coverage analysis was conducted and considers weather observations for the most recent ten years (2008 through 2017 at the time of this analysis). Appendix K provides a memorandum summarizing the results of the wind coverage analysis.

Page | 5-1 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

At SAT, both Runways 13L-31R/13R-31L and 4-22 individually provide 95 percent or greater wind coverage for ADG III, IV and V aircraft, as shown in Table 5-1. However, neither runway alone provides sufficient wind coverage for smaller aircraft (A-I, B-I), and Runway 4-22 also does not provide sufficient wind coverage for A-II and B-II aircraft, as illustrated in red text in Table 5-1. Combined, however, the two SAT runway orientations provide 95 percent or greater wind coverage for all aircraft. If an airport needs more than one runway to provide the required wind coverage, the additional runway (Runway 4-22 at SAT) is considered a “crosswind runway”, with the purpose of providing the required wind coverage for smaller aircraft (A-I and B-I at SAT). Table 5-1 | Annualized Runway Wind Coverage by Runway (All Weather)

Crosswind Airplane Design Wind Coverage Component Group (ADG) Runways 13-31 Runway 4-22 Combined 10.5 knots A-I, B-I 94.2% 84.5% 98.8% 13 knots A-II, B-II 97.5% 91.4% 99.8% A-III, B-III 16 knots C-I through C-III 99.5% 97.6% 99.9% D-I through D-III 20 knots All others 99.9% 99.5% 100.0%

Sources: Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Change 1, Airport Design, February 2014; National Climatic Data Center, Weather Station 722530, San Antonio International Airport, 2008-2017; WSP USA, 2018.

To address stakeholder concerns about strong northerly winds in the winter months, a seasonal wind analysis was also conducted, with results shown in Table 5-2. In addition to the findings of the annualized wind coverage analysis, the seasonal analysis revealed that Runways 13-31s also do not provide 95 percent or higher wind coverage for A-II and B-II aircraft during the months of November through January (illustrated in red text). Table 5-2 | Runways 13-31 Seasonal Wind Coverage (All Weather) Crosswind 10.5 knots 13 knots 16 knots 20 knots (A-I, B-I) (A-II, B-II) (A/B-III, C/D-I (All Year Month through III) others) 2017 January 88.7% 94.1% 98.5% 99.9% 2017 November 89.4% 94.8% 98.9% 99.7% 2017 December 89.5% 94.1% 98.2% 99.7% 2017 November, December, January 89.4% 94.4% 98.5% 99.8% 2014 November, December, January 85.5% 92.3% 98.0% 99.7% 2011 November, December, January 90.5% 95.5% 99.2% 99.9% 2008 November, December, January 87.3% 92.5% 97.3% 99.4% 2008-2017 12 months 94.2% 97.5% 99.5% 99.9%

Sources: National Climatic Data Center, Weather Station 722530, San Antonio International Airport, 2008-2017; WSP USA, 2018.

Although a crosswind runway is only required for A-I and B-I aircraft based on annual wind coverage, the seasonal analysis of wind coverage shows that a crosswind runway accommodating A-II and B-II aircraft is also required during the winter months.

Page | 5-2 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

RUNWAY FUNDING ELIGIBILITY The FAA determines the funding eligibility of runway projects based on runway definitions: primary, crosswind and secondary runways are eligible for funding, while additional runways are not. At SAT, per the FAA definitions of funding eligibility, Runway 13R-31L is a primary runway, Runway 4-22 is a crosswind runway for small aircraft up to A-II and B-II, and Runway 13L-31R is an additional runway. As a result, when Runway 4-22 requires reconstruction, it is not eligible for reconstruction as a C/ D-III/IV runway. It might be eligible for FAA funding for reconstruction up to B-II airfield design standards, assuming the results of the seasonal wind coverage are applied; this will be assessed further in the Alternatives Development Evaluation chapter. When existing Runway 13L-31R requires reconstruction, it would not be eligible for FAA funding in its current role, as it does not meet requirements of a secondary runway.

5.1.2 AIRFIELD GEOMETRY In addition to a significant evolution in aircraft characteristics, many airports were designed long before current geometry standards came into effect and, as a result, may not meet the latest standards set forth in FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, Change 1. Airfield geometry is typically tailored to the projected critical aircraft.

CRITICAL AIRCRAFT FAA AC 150/5000-17 on Critical Aircraft and Regular Use Determination defines the critical aircraft as the most demanding aircraft type, or grouping of aircraft with similar characteristics, operating at the airport with a minimum of 500 annual operations. Based on the FAA-approved forecast for SAT, the following aircraft were identified as the critical aircraft: • Existing: Airbus A300-600F • Future:

­ Passenger: Boeing 787-9 ­ Cargo: Boeing 747-8F Although the Boeing 747-8F is Aircraft Design Group (ADG) VI, the entire airfield does not need to be designed for ADG VI requirements. Indeed, this aircraft type is associated with air cargo carrier UPS only, and is only anticipated to operate on Runways 13R-31L and 4-22 and associated taxiways. As such, airfield upgrades should be selective and cost-effective for accommodating the specific aircraft that use each portion of the infrastructure, specifically towards the UPS facility. Beyond the FAA planning horizon (2038) toward 2068, it is projected that larger passenger aircraft, such as the Airbus A350-1000 and Boeing 777-8/-9 and 787-10 may operate at SAT. Requirements for these aircraft types will not drive the 20-year needs for SAT, but will be considered to inform the future alternatives, so as to not preclude the use of these aircraft through the 2068 planning horizon.

Page | 5-3 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE The Airport Reference Code (ARC) is composed of the Aircraft Approach Category (AAC) and the ADG. The ARC provides design standards based on operational and physical characteristics of aircraft expected to use the airport. AAC represents the aircraft approach speed and ADG is a combination of wingspan and tail height. As shown in Table 5-3, the existing ARC for SAT is C-IV, and is anticipated to become D-V through the planning horizon based on passenger aircraft. Should the Boeing 747-8F cargo aircraft start operating at SAT, the ARC would become D-VI. Table 5-3 | Proposed Airport Reference Code

Timeframe Critical Aircraft Airport Reference Code

Existing A300-600F (C-IV) C-IV Passenger: Boeing 787-9/-10 (D-V) Passenger: D-V Future Cargo: Boeing 747-8F (D-VI) Cargo: D-VI Source: San Antonio International Airport Master Plan, Approved Aviation Activity Forecasts, 2018.

RUNWAY DESIGN CODE The Runway Design Code (RDC) provides information on runway design standards (dimensions, separations, etc.). The RDC, similar to the ARC, is based on the critical aircraft and is composed of the AAC, the ADG, and approach visibility minimums. Approach visibility relates to the approach visibility minimums for a specific runway. Based on the FAA-approved forecast, SAT runways should be able to accommodate D-V aircraft on a regular basis. However, it would be prudent to plan for at least one D-VI runway, should regular activity by cargo aircraft such as the Boeing 747-8F materialize.

AIRFIELD DESIGN STANDARDS The existing runway dimensions and airfield design standards for ADGs III, IV, V and VI are summarized in Table 5-4. Red text indicates that existing conditions do not meet standards.

RUNWAY DESIGN Runways 13R-31L and 4-22 are designed for ADG IV aircraft, and Runway 13L-31R for ADG III aircraft. Should Runway 13R-31L remain, the critical aircraft is anticipated to become ADG V and possibly ADG VI within the planning period, requiring improvements to meet ADG V and ADG VI standards. Runway 4-22 is not required as a D-IV runway, and would not be eligible for FAA funding at D-IV design standards when the time comes to reconstruct it. It is anticipated that if Runway 4-22 were to remain, it would be downgraded to a B-II visual runway upon reconstruction. Runway 13L-31R is not required from a capacity or wind coverage perspective, and as such, would not be eligible for FAA funding when the time comes to reconstruct it.

Page | 5-4 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Table 5-4 | Airfield Design Standards Runway 13L-31R Runway 4-22 Runway 13R-31L Existing B-III Existing B-II D- IV Existing D- IV D-V D-VI Design Standard Conditions (B-III) Standards Conditions (D-IV) Standards Standards Conditions (D-IV) Standards Standards Standards Runway Width 100’ 100’ 150’ 75’ 150’ 150’ 150’ 150’ Shoulder Width 0’ 20’ 25’ 10’ 25’ 0’ 25’ 35’ 40’ Blast Pad Width 100’ / 0’ 140’ 200’/ 220’ 95’ 200’ 150’/200’ 200’ 220’ 280’ Blast Pad Length 150’ / 0’ 200’ 200’/ 400’ 150’ 200’ 200’ 200’ 400’ 400’ Runway Safety Area Length Beyond Departure End 600’ 600’ 1,000’ 300’ 1,000’ 1,000’ 1,000’ 1,000’ 1,000’ Length Prior To Threshold 600’ 600’ 600’ 300’ 600’ 600’ 600’ 600’ 600’ Width 300’ 300’ 500’ 150’ 500’ 500’ 500’ 500’ 500’ Runway Object Free Area Length Beyond Departure End 600’ 600’ 1,000’ 300’ 1,000’ 1,000’ 1,000’ 1,000’ 1,000’ Length Prior To Threshold 600’ 600’ 600’ 300’ 600’ 600’ 600’ 600’ 600’ Width 800’ 800’ 800’ 500’ 800’ 800’ 800’ 800’ 800’ Runway Obstacle Free Zone Length Beyond Runway End 200’ 200’ 200’ 200’ 200’ 200’ 200’ 200’ 200’ Width 400’ 400’ 400’ 250’ 400’ 400’ 400’ 400’ 400’ Precision Obstacle Free Zone Length N/A N/A 200’ N/A 200’ 200’ 200’ 200’ 200’ Width N/A N/A 800’ N/A 800’ 800’ 800’ 800’ 800’ Approach Runway Protection Zone 1/ Length 1,000’ 1,000’ 1,700’ 1,000’ 1,700’ 2,500’ 1,700’ 2,500’ 2,500’ Inner Width 500’ 500’ 1,000’ 500’ 1,000’ 1,000’ 1,000’ 1,000’ 1,000’ Outer Width 700’ 700’ 1,510’ 700’ 1,510’ 1,750’ 1,510’ 1,750’ 1,750’ Departure Runway Protection Zone Length 1,000’ 1,000’ 1,700’ 1,000’ 1,700’ 1,700’ 1,700’ 1,700’ 1,700’ Inner Width 500’ 500’ 500’ 500’ 500’ 500’ 500’ 500’ 500’ Outer Width 700’ 700’ 1,010’ 700’ 1,010’ 1,010’ 1,010’ 1,010’ 1,010’ Runway-Parallel Taxiway Separation 410’ 300’ 400’ 240’ 400’ 400’ 400’ 400’/ 500’/550’ / / Notes: Red text indicates existing conditions do not meet design standards. SM = statute mile 1/ Approach Runway Protection Zone Visibility Minimums: • Runway 13L-31R: > 1 statute mile • Runway 4-22: visual for B-II, > ¾ statute mile for C-IV • Runway 13R-31L: < ¾ statute mile 2/ Visibility Minimum < ½ statute mile

Sources: Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A Change 1, Airport Design, 2014; San Antonio International Airport, Airport Layout Plan, June 2017.

Page | 5-1 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

RUNWAY INTERSECTIONS/HOT SPOTS Intersecting runways are undesirable and often create “hot spots”. Eliminating existing runway intersections or avoiding future intersections increases margins of safety, and is therefore recommended by the FAA. There are two hot spots at SAT, one where Runway 13R-31L intersects with Taxiway N, and one where Runways 13R-31L and 4-22 intersect. Additionally, intersecting runways, such as Runways 13R-31L and 4-22, cannot be used independently of each other, and therefore, either add no or very little airfield capacity. RUNWAY WIDTH All runways meet the design standard for their respective existing and potential future RDCs. RUNWAY SHOULDERS Paved shoulders are required for runways accommodating ADG IV aircraft and larger, and are recommended for runways accommodating ADG III aircraft. Runways 13R-31L and 13L-31R do not have paved shoulders. Twenty-foot wide shoulders are recommended to be added to Runway 13L-31R, and 40-foot wide shoulders are required on Runway 13R-31L to accommodate ADG VI aircraft. Runway 4-22 has 25-foot-wide paved shoulders that meet the ADG IV standards. BLAST PADS The Runway 4-22 blast pads are ADG IV-compliant. The Runway 13R-31L blast pads would need to be widened to either 220 feet or 280 feet, to meet ADG V or ADG VI standards, respectively. The Runways 13L-31R blast pads do not meet ADG III standards, and should be widened to 140 feet and lengthened to 200 feet. RUNWAY/PARALLEL TAXIWAY SEPARATION DISTANCES Separation distances between runways and parallel taxiways at SAT meet current FAA standards as reported in the 2017 SAT ALP. Should the Runway 13R-31L RDC increase to D-V or D-IV, the separation with Taxiway G would need to increase to either 500 feet or 550 feet respectively, based on approach visibility minimums less than ½ statute mile.

RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS The purpose of this section is to determine the runway length required to accommodate the forecast fleet mix through the planning horizon, for both takeoff and landing. The main sources of information on aircraft performance for runway planning and design are the aircraft/airport compatibility manuals provided by the aircraft manufacturers – also known as Aircraft Characteristics for Airport Planning (ACAP) and Airport Planning Manual (APM). These documents feature charts for different aircraft configurations (weight, flaps, etc.) and weather conditions (temperature, elevation, etc.). The operating weight of the aircraft has a considerable influence on the takeoff and landing performances. Runway length requirements were calculated for the Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight (MGTOW) and Maximum Landing Weight (MLW). Additionally, lower fuel (Boeing 747-8F on SAT-SDF route) and payload (Boeing 787-9 to Europe at 75% and 90% load factors) were also considered.

Page | 5-1 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

This approach may differ from the analysis individual airlines perform as part of the decision- making process, when considering new air service or a change of aircraft type – where market considerations and aircraft performance are balanced. Also, airlines are subjected to different standards than airports, and the runway length is not the only factor to be considered. Aircraft operators’ specific criteria, such as the One Engine Inoperative (OEI) surface for ensuring the safety of large aircraft commercial flights performing takeoff with an engine failure, can prevent an airline from utilizing all the runway length available to clear objects. Therefore, this analysis assumes “unconstrained” runway length available – i.e. without obstacle limitations. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS The runway length requirements were determined in accordance with the guidance provided by FAA AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport, for aircraft over 60,000 pounds. The following factors were taken into consideration: • Local climate: Mean Daily Maximum Temperature (MDMT) of 97.6°F in August • Airport elevation: 809.1 feet Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL) • Runway characteristics:

­ Maximum difference in runway centerline elevations: effective runway gradient for Runway 13R-31L of 0.33 percent

­ Runway surface conditions • Critical aircraft: MTOW, MLW and preferred flap settings (when available) The FAA recommends computing the runway length requirements by grouping aircraft types with similar performance characteristics that “result in the longest recommended runway length”.1 The aircraft chosen for the runway length requirements are the Airbus A330-900neo, the Airbus A350- 900, the Boeing 787-9, and the Boeing 747-8F. Also, the needs of the Boeing 777 family were evaluated for the period beyond the 2038 horizon. TYPICAL DESTINATIONS FOR HEAVY AIRCRAFT The forecast projects an increase in long-haul international service. The Boeing 787-9 could start operations to Europe by 2028, with daily flights in 2038. Furthermore, UPS expressed the desire to operate the Boeing 747-8F to its Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport (SDF) hub from SAT as soon as possible. Therefore, the runway length requirements analysis was performed for various payloads and ranges: • 4,700 nautical miles (NM), as a representative range to the large European hub airports, such as Amsterdam (AMS), London (LHR and LGW), Paris (CDG), Frankfurt (FRA) and Oslo (OSL). Today, the Boeing 757-200 and 767-300/400ER can fly to Europe from SAT’s existing runways, but with reduced payload only.

1 FAA AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, Section 102.a.2, p. 1, 2005.

Page | 5-2 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

• 800 NM to SDF, the U.S. hub for UPS Figure 5-1 depicts range rings from SAT relevant to this analysis. Figure 5-1 | Range Rings from San Antonio

Source: WSP USA, 2018. LANDING AND TAKE-OFF LENGTH REQUIREMENTS Take-off and landing runway length requirements were evaluated separately. Landing length requirements were assessed using the MLW, while take-off length requirements were assessed using the MGTOW or the Maximum Allowable Take-off Weight (MATOW). MATOW is the maximum weight an aircraft can take off at, based on local conditions (runway length, airport elevation). Additionally, take-off length requirements were assessed for load factors of 75 percent and 90 percent. The landing and take-off runway length requirements for the current and future critical aircraft are summarized in Table 5-5 and depicted on Figure 5-2.

Page | 5-3 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Table 5-5 | Runway Length Requirements Take-Off Landing Length Typical Seat Weight Length Aircraft Assumptions Requirement Capacity (lbs.) Requirement (feet) (feet) A330-900neo1,2 287-303 MLW 421,000 TBD N/A MTOW 554,000 N/A TBD To 4,700 NM TBD N/A TBD (Europe) A350-9001 315-325 MLW 457,00 6,600 N/A MTOW 618,000 N/A 10,400 To 4,700 NM 580,000 N/A 9,450 (Europe) 90% of Load Factor 568,000 N/A 8,800 75% of Load Factor 550,000 N/A 8,250 767-200ER 174-245 MLW 300,000 6,300 N/A MTOW 395,000 N/A 11,540 To 4,700 NM 388,000 N/A 10,500 (Europe) 90% of Load Factor 380,000 N/A 9,400 75% of Load Factor 369,000 N/A 8,500 787-8 242-359 MLW 380,000 6,500 N/A MTOW 502,500 N/A 15,4003 To 4,700 NM 481,000 N/A 14,600 (Europe) 90% of Load Factor 472,000 N/A 13,250 75% of Load Factor 458,500 N/A 12,800 787-91,3 290-406 MLW 425,000 7,200 N/A MTOW 560,000 N/A 14,0503 To 4,700 NM 544,000 N/A 13,200 (Europe) 90% of Load Factor 532,000 N/A 12,500 75% of Load Factor 514,500 N/A 10,700 747-8F1 N/A MLW 763,000 9,000 N/A MTOW 987,000 N/A 13,350 To 800 NM (SDF) 777,000 N/A 7,900 Notes: MGTOW – Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight MLW – Maximum Landing Weight NM – Nautical Miles SDF – Louisville International Airport The Boeing 757-200 and 767-300/400ER can fly to Europe from SAT’s existing runways with reduced payload only. 1 – Design aircraft per FAA approved forecasts. 2 – Airbus has not yet released the takeoff performances of the A330-900neo. 3 – At SAT elevation, 787-8 cannot takeoff at MGTOW. The maximum weight allowed at SAT elevation is 494,000 lbs. 4 – At SAT elevation, 787-9 cannot takeoff at MGTOW. The maximum weight allowed at SAT elevation is 548,000 lbs.

Source: WSP USA, 2018.

Page | 5-4 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Figure 5-2 | Runway Length Requirements vs Existing Runway Length

Notes: MLW – Maximum Landing Weight MTOW – Maximum Takeoff Weight NM – Nautical Miles SDF – Louisville International Airport

Source: WSP USA, 2018.

Findings for the 20-year planning period: • The Boeing 747-8F can operate on the existing 8,500-foot-long runways: UPS expressed the desire to operate the Boeing 747-8F to its SDF hub from SAT as soon as possible. The departure runway length requirement for this aircraft to this relatively close destination is 7,900 feet. However, this aircraft type currently cannot operate at SAT because its tail would penetrate the Part 77 Transitional Surface when parked on the UPS apron. • Direct flights to certain western Europeans destinations are possible with the existing runway length (8,500 feet), but for the 20-year planning horizon, serving all European destinations with an extensive fleet mix would require a runway extension, depending on

Page | 5-5 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

the aircraft. The runway length requirements to Europe for the critical aircraft, the Boeing 787-9, are:

­ MATOW: 13,200 feet (the longest length of several similar aircraft types) ­ 90% load factor: 12,500 feet ­ 75% load factor: 10,700 feet (more realistic load factor) Other suitable aircraft have requirements between 9,450 feet (Airbus A350-900) to 12,200 feet (Boeing 777-300ER). Based on the Boeing 787-9 at a 75% load factor, the recommended runway length through the 20-year planning horizon is 10,700 feet. The actual runway length that can be achieved will be studied in Chapter 6 - Alternatives Development.

Considerations for runway length requirements beyond the planning period: Potential new routes beyond Europe could require more length than 10,700 feet, up to 12,000 feet. LONG-TERM CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS Per NOAA and the recently completed report of the City of San Antonio, San Antonio Climate Ready Plan of June 2018, San Antonio is likely to continue to warm up over the 21th century. The report has generated 21 global climate models proposed by the Coupled Model Inter-Comparison Project 5 (CMIP5). CMIP is a project developed by the World Climate Research Program (WCRP) that aims to realize climate simulations in coordinated ways between the different research groups, allowing a better estimation and understanding of the differences between the climate models. For the SA Climate Ready Plan, two projections were explored: a scenario of the Climate Change of Lower Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5, and a scenario of the higher RCP 8.5. These two scenarios encompass the uncertainty of human activities and emission of heat trapping gas. Each projection was averaged over 30-year periods, a typical interval used to estimate climatic norms. The temperature projections for the City of San Antonio are depicted in Figure 5-3 and summarized in Table 5-6. The changes were computed for the Summer Daytime Maximum Temperature averaged over 30- year periods, which is a different concept than the Mean Daytime Maximum Temperature (MDMT) used in aviation planning. The MDMT assessment considers only the temperatures of the hottest month, whereas the Summer Daytime Maximum Temperature focuses on three whole months. However, the hottest month of the year in San Antonio is August and therefore, the same temperature increase was assumed for the MDMT.

Page | 5-6 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Figure 5-3 | Average Summer Daytime Maximum Temperature in San Antonio

Source: SA Climate Ready, Climate Projections for the City of San Antonio, June 2018.

Table 5-6 | Forecasted Temperature for San Antonio Temperature Scenario 2011-2040 2041-2070 2071-2100 Temperatures Low Scenario 97.3 °F 98.9 °F 99.5 °F High Scenario 97.3 °F 100.1 °F 103.1 °F Temperature Increase Low Scenario 97.3 °F +1.6 °F +2.2 °F High Scenario 97.3 °F +2.8 °F +5.8 °F Source: SA Climate Ready, Climate Projections for the City of San Antonio, June 2018.

There is a differential of 0.3°F between the MDMT computed and the average summer daytime maximum temperatures for the current 30-year period (2011-2040). For the following period, the analyses published in the SA Climate Ready Plan led to an increase by 1.6° F for the low scenario and by 2.8° F for the high scenario. Using these climate assumptions, the runway length required for the Boeing 787-9 flying to Europe has a sensitivity of an additional 125 feet per 1° F increase. The runway lengths for the Boeing 787-9 operating for a 4,700-NM range are projected to need an additional 200 feet for a low climate change scenario, and an additional 350 feet for a high scenario, as shown in Table 5-7.

Page | 5-7 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Table 5-7 | 787 Runway Length Requirement Considering Long-Term Climate Change Temperature Impact on Take-Off Length Requirement (feet) 1 MDMT2018 Reference MDMT2018 + 1.6 °F +200’ MDMT2018 + 2.8 °F +350’ Notes: MDMT – Mean Daytime Maximum Temperature

Source: WSP USA, 2018.

In addition, the SA Climate Ready Plan studied the annual number of hot days, defined as days with temperature over 100 °F (approximately but not identical as the MDMT), as shown in Figure 5-4 and Table 5-8. Figure 5-4 | Annual Number of Days with the Maximum Temperature above 100°F

Source: SA Climate Ready, Climate Projections for the City of San Antonio, June 2018.

Table 5-8 | Annual Number of Days with the Maximum Temperature above 100°F Scenario 2011-2040 2041-2070 2071-2100 Annual Number of Days with Maximum Temperature above 100°F Low Scenario 31 47 55 High Scenario 31 61 101 Annual Number of Days Increase Low Scenario 31 +16 +24 High Scenario 31 +30 +70 Source: SA Climate Ready, Climate Projections for the City of San Antonio, June 2018.

During these hot days, based on a runway designed for the current MDMT per FAA standards, long-haul flights may experience operational restrictions as they will not be able to takeoff at their MGTOW. As runway planning advances, climate effects will need to be considered further.

Page | 5-8 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

RUNWAY AREAS The FAA’s design standards for the various runway areas at SAT are presented in this section. The following is a list of the airfield safety areas that were evaluated for the Airport: • Runway Safety Areas • Runway Object Free Areas • Runway Obstacle Free Zones • Runway Protection Zones The existing ALP was used to determine the locations of objects that may affect navigation. The existing runway area deficiencies are described in more detail in this section. RUNWAY SAFETY AREA The Runway Safety Area (RSA) is a surface located at ground level and centered on the runway centerline. The RSA surrounds the runway and is designed to reduce the risk of damage to aircraft in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway. The surface shall be clear of objects except those required for air and ground navigation. RSA standard dimensions assume containing about 90 percent of aircraft that overrun and veer-off the runway within the RSA. RSA grades shall meet specific requirements: the longitudinal grade should be from 0 to -3 percent for the first 200 feet from the end of the runway, and to -5 percent for the last 300 feet. Transverse grades should be -1.5 to -3 percent away from the runway shoulder edge. Per the 2010 SAT Master Plan and the 2017 SAT ALP, the existing RSAs meet design standards for aircraft anticipated to operate at SAT through 2038. Table 5-4 depicts the standards for ADG IV, V and ADG VI RSAs. RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA The Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) is a surface located at ground level and centered on the runway centerline. The ROFA surrounds the runway and aims to enhance the safety of aircraft operations by clearing the area of objects, to avoid any collisions between aircraft and objects. The surface shall be clear of objects, except those required for air and ground navigation. The ROFA design standards for ADG VI are provided in Table 5-4, which shows different transverse grade standards for ADG IV and ADG V-VI. The maximum allowable slope between the edge of the RSA and the edge of the ROFA is 10:1 for ADG IV aircraft, and 16:1 for ADG V and ADG VI aircraft. SAT’s existing ROFAs are meeting FAA standards for ADG IV, V and VI, based on the 2017 SAT ALP. OBSTACLE FREE ZONE The Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) shall be clear of objects, except for frangible navigational aids fixed by function. The OFZ is composed of a Runway Object Free Zone (ROFZ), an Inner- approach OFZ, and an Inner-transitional OFZ, as applicable. The ROFZ is a volume of airspace centered above the runway centerline, with an elevation at any point that is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline. It extends Page | 5-9 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

200 feet beyond the end of each runway and has a width of 400 feet for runway accommodating large aircraft (maximum takeoff weight greater than 41,000 pounds). The Inner-approach OFZ is a volume of airspace centered on the approach area that applies only to runways equipped with an Approach Lighting System (ALS). This surface is 400 feet wide, begins 200 feet from the runway threshold at the same elevation as the runway threshold, and extends 200 feet beyond the last light unit in the ALS. The Inner-approach OFZ has a slope of 50:1. The Inner-transitional OFZ is a volume of airspace along the sides of the ROFZ and Inner- approach OFZ, and applies to runways with lower than ¾ statute mile approach visibility minimums. It begins at the edge of the ROFZ and the Inner-approach OFZ, and then rises at a slope of 6:1 to a height of 150 feet above airport elevation for instrument approach category I (CAT I) runways. The Inner-approach OFZ cannot be penetrated by an aircraft tail. The Precision Obstacle Free Zone (POFZ) applies to runways with precision instrument approaches. It is defined as a volume of airspace above an area beginning at the runway’s landing threshold and centered on runway centerline. It extends 200 feet from the runway threshold, has a width of 800 feet and has the same elevation as the runway threshold elevation. The Precision OFZ can be penetrated by the wing of an aircraft holding on a taxiway waiting, but not by the fuselage or the tail of an aircraft. At SAT, all runways have a ROFZ. Only Runways 13R-31L and 4-22 have an Inner-approach OFZ, Inner-transitional OFZ and a Precision OFZ. The 2017 ALP states that all OFZs meet FAA standards, i.e. there are no penetrations to the OFZs. Table 5-4 summarizes the dimensional standards for OFZs. RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE The RPZ is a two-dimensional surface with the purpose to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground through specific land-use limitations designed to keep an area clear of incompatible uses, such as residences and public assembly buildings. The shape of this area is a trapezoid centered on the extended runway centerline. There are two types of RPZs: approach and departure. The dimensions of these areas are depending of the type of aircraft and the approach visibility minimums. FAA AC 150/5300-13A recommends that the airport have control of the RPZs and have it “clear of all above-ground objects”. When it is not practical to have complete control of the entire RPZ, the airport should at a minimum obtain avigation easements to keep the RPZ clear of incompatible objects and activities. Table 5-4 provides the standard RPZ dimensions. Table 5-9 summarizes the portions of the existing RPZs that are not within airport property, and that have incompatible land uses. These include the RPZs for Runway 4, Runway 22, Runway 13L and Runway 31L. FAA policies recommend mitigation such as land acquisition, avigation easements and removal of incompatible land uses inside the RPZ2.

2 Federal Aviation Administration, Interim Guidance on Land Uses Within a Runway Protection Zone, September 2012. Page | 5-10 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Table 5-9 | Existing Runway Protection Zones Off Airport Property Off-Airport Runway Runway 4-22 Runway 13L-31R Runway 13R-31L Protection Zone Land Use 4 End 22 End 13L End 31R End 13R End 31L End Incompatible Land Use Buildings (acres) 3.2 0.0 1.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 Public Roadways (acres) 3.2 0.0 16.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 Compatible Land Use (acres) 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL PER RUNWAY (acres) 7.8 25.6 0.0 TOTAL (acres) 33.4 Source: San Antonio International Airport, Airport Layout Plan, June 2017.

TAXIWAY DESIGN Taxiway upgrades should be selective and cost-effective for accommodating the specific aircraft that use each portion of the infrastructure. TAXIWAY WIDTH Table 5-10 compares the existing and standard width of the SAT taxiway network, based on the existing Taxiway Design Group (TDG). Red text indicates deficiencies. Future width requirements were not evaluated, as the proposed airfield layout will be determined in Chapter 6 – Alternatives Development and Evaluation. Figure 5-5 depicts the three taxiways that do not meet existing width standards: • Taxiway E • The northern part of Taxiway J • Taxiway P Taxiway E has a width of 40 feet. This portion of Taxiway E provides access to the east GA apron, where the FBOs occasionally serve large charter aircraft, and have expressed the desire for a wider taxiway. In addition, the south end of this apron is served by a TDG 6 taxiway. The two other taxiways are both TDG 3 and only have a width of 40 feet, instead of 50 feet. Therefore, enhancements are recommended for these taxiways to meet existing design standards.

Page | 5-11 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Table 5-10 | Existing and Standard Taxiway Widths Existing Standard Existing Taxiway Taxiway Taxiway Width Taxiway Width Design Group (in Feet) (in Feet) A 6 75 75 B 5 75 75 D (West of Taxiway N) 6 75 75 D (East of Taxiway N) 6 75 130 E (East of Taxiway N) 6 75 40 F 4 50 75 G 6 75 75 G1 4 50 130 G2 4 50 135 G3 4 50 135 H 6 75 75 J (North of Runway 13R-31L) 3 50 40 J (South of Runway 13R-31L) 6 75 75 K 6 75 90 L 6 75 75 M 3 50 50 N 6 75 75 N1 6 75 100 N2 6 75 132 N3 6 75 102 N6 6 75 130 N7 6 75 100 N8 6 75 100 P 3 50 40 Q 6 75 75 Q1 6 75 100 R 6 75 75 S 6 75 75 T 5 75 75 V 6 75 82 W 6 75 110 Y 6 75 80 Z 6 75 150 RC 2 35 50 Note: Red text indicates deficiencies in meeting design standards.

Sources: San Antonio International Airport, Airport Layout Plan, June 2017; Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular AC 150/5300-13A Change 1, Airport Design, 2014.

Page | 5-12 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Figure 5-5 | Taxiways with Non-Compliant Widths

Source: San Antonio International Airport Layout Plan, 2017; WSP USA, 2018.

TAXIWAY SHOULDERS AND FILLETS Paved shoulders are required for taxiways, taxilanes and aprons accommodating ADG IV and higher aircraft, and are recommended for taxiways, taxilanes and aprons accommodating ADG III aircraft. Table 5-11 summarizes taxiway fillets and shoulder standards. Most of SAT’s taxiways do not have paved shoulders; shoulders should be added to taxiways that accommodate ADG IV aircraft or larger as part of these taxiways’ next pavement rehabilitation project. Since 2013, taxiway fillets were improved on Taxiways D, G, J, N, Q and W. A taxiway fillet analysis is recommended as part of a subsequent study to assess taxiway turning movements with insufficient taxiway edge safety margins (TESM). Table 5-11 | Taxiway Shoulder and Fillets Standards Taxiway Design Groups Taxiway Design Groups Design Standards 3 and 4 5 and 6 Taxiway Edge Safety Margin 10’ 15’ Taxiway Shoulder Width 20’ 30’ Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular AC 150/5300-13A Change 1, Airport Design, 2014. TAXIWAY PROTECTION AREAS The terminal apron and a service road penetrate the existing ADG IV Taxiway H object free area, north of Terminals A and B, and the Purple Lot. The available OFA is only 100 feet wide on this side of the Taxiway H centerline, for a requirement of 129.5 feet. The southern edge of the service

Page | 5-13 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements road/terminal apron is 125 feet from the Taxiway H centerline; as such, approximately 4 feet of apron are inside the taxiway OFA. Additionally, ADG V and VI taxiway protection standards will be considered in Chapter 6 - Alternatives Development and Evaluation, where appropriate. PARALLEL TAXIWAY A full length parallel taxiway is required for instrument approach procedures with visibility minimums below one SM, and recommended for all other conditions. Runways 13R-31L and 4-22 both have instrument approaches with visibility minimums below one SM, and both have a full-length parallel taxiway, Taxiway G and Taxiway N, respectively, and two partial-length parallel taxiways, Taxiway H and Taxiway Q, respectively. Additionally, Runway 13L-31R has a full-length ADG IV parallel taxiway, Taxiway R. RUNWAY ENTRANCE AND EXIT TAXIWAYS Runway entrance and exit taxiways connect runways to the taxiway network. An entrance taxiway may also be used as an exit taxiway. The FAA recommends two types of runway entrance/exit taxiways: right-angled exit taxiways and high-speed exit taxiways. A right-angled taxiway forms a 90-degree angle with the runway centerline, which provides the pilot with the best visual perspective and thus increases safety. A high-speed exit taxiway typically forms a 30-degree angle with the runway. It is designed to allow an aircraft to exit a runway without decelerating to typical taxi speed, thus reducing the Runway Occupancy Time (ROT) and increasing runway capacity if located properly. Geometry Runways 13R, 13L, and 31R ends have four angled exit taxiways: Taxiways B, L, M and P. The geometry of these exit taxiways does not meet the FAA design standards (see Figure 5-6) for high-speed exit taxiways, as their initial radius is too short. Figure 5-6 | Taxiway Design Group-5 High-Speed Exit Taxiway Standard Geometry

Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Change 1, Airport Design, February 2014.

Page | 5-14 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Additionally, high-speed runway exits should not connect directly to another runway (such as Taxiways M and P), nor should connect to the outer of two parallel taxiways (such as Taxiway B to Taxiway H). As such, Taxiways B, L, M and P are not considered to be high-speed exit taxiways. However, these taxiways still allow aircraft to exit Runway 13R-31L through Taxiways B, L, M and P at a design speed of 35 knots, 20 knots, 11 knots and 11 knots, respectively, instead of approximately 50 knots per high-speed exit standards, as shown in Table 5-12. To avoid confusions and allow aircraft to vacate the runway at 50 knots, their geometry could be corrected and their initial radius from the runway to the taxiway should be increased to 1,500 feet. Table 5-12 | Characteristics of Existing Angled Taxiways Initial Turn Design Landing Distance Theoretical Cumulative Designation Runway Radius Speed Available Utilization Percentage 30% - T B 31L 890’ 35 knots 2,830’ 99% - S 40% - T M 31L 85’ 11 knots 3,026’ 100% - S 75% - H 80% - L L 31L 290’ 20 knots 5,239’ 100% - T 100% - S 40% - T P 13L 80’ 11 knots 3,000’ 100% - S Notes: S - Small, single engine aircraft: 12,500 lbs. or less; T - Small, twin engine aircraft: 12,500 lbs. or less; L - Large aircraft: 12,500 lbs. to 300,000 lbs.; H - Heavy aircraft: > 300,000 lbs.

Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Change 1, Airport Design, February 2014.

Location ATCT personnel mentioned that the existing angled runway exit taxiways are not in optimal locations. Taxiways B, M and P are located at approximately 3,000 feet from the runway threshold, as shown on Figure 5-7, and intercept a significant part of the general aviation traffic landing on Runway 13L and 13R. Taxiway L is strategically located for utilization by most of the fleet landing on Runway 13R. There is no angled exit taxiway on Runway 4-22. Should the airfield capacity analysis warrant it, additional angled or high-speed exit taxiways could be considered to capture future critical aircraft with longer landing distances (e.g., Airbus A350, Boeing 747-8, Boeing 787).

Page | 5-15 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Figure 5-7 | Angled Exit Taxiways

Source: San Antonio International Airport, Airport Layout Plan, June 2017. TAXIWAY GEOMETRY The main areas of taxiway geometry concern are Hot Spots 1 and 2, where two runways and a runway and taxiway intersect, respectively. The airfield alternatives analysis will consider eliminating runway intersections, and propose a future airfield layout that is compliant with the latest taxiway geometry guidance.

BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE FAA AC 150/5300-13A defines the Building Restriction Line (BRL) as a “line that identifies suitable and unsuitable locations for buildings on airports”. A BRL delimitates adapted building areas that are beyond the RPZ, the OFA, the ROFZ, the FAA TERPS surfaces and the Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ). A modification to this standard may be approved by the FAA if an acceptable level of safety is maintained, such as the airport having a 24-hour control tower with a clear line-of- sight (LOS). The existing BRL is offset 750 feet from the Runway 4-22 and Runway 13R-31L centerlines. On the north part of Runway 13L-31R, the separation reaches 540 feet. The only existing BRL issue is the engine maintenance run-up pad located within the RVZ, as depicted in Figure 5-8. The 1998 SAT Master Plan states that the ATCT LOS has been designed to be compliant with ADG V aircraft, providing an adequate level of safety for the engine maintenance run-up pad.

The future BRL should be evaluated as part of the Alternatives Development and Evaluation in Chapter 6.

Page | 5-16 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Figure 5-8 | Building Restriction Line Between Runways 13R-31L and 4-22

Maintenance Run-Up Pad

Legend: Building Restriction Line

Source: San Antonio International Airport, Airport Layout Plan, June 2017.

5.1.3 AIRFIELD DEMAND/CAPACITY ANALYSIS Airfield capacity is defined by the FAA as a measure of the airfield’s ability to accommodate the maximum number of aircraft operations. The purpose of calculating airfield capacity is to compare the existing capacity and the forecast demand to determine whether the airfield is capable to handle the operations without significant delay. The capacity of the airfield is not constant over time, there are several factors that could affect the capacity including: • Efficiency and safety of existing airfield and airspace • Wind coverage and runway orientations • Weather conditions and runway use • Future level of demand • Future fleet mix • Taxiway exit locations FAA AC 150/5060-5 on Airport Capacity and Delay provides guidance to estimate Hourly Airport Capacity, Aircraft Delay, and Annual Service Volume (ASV): • The Hourly Airport Capacity is defined as “a measure of the maximum number of aircraft operations which can be accommodated on the airport in an hour” • Aircraft Delay is defined as “the difference between constrained and unconstrained operating time” Page | 5-17 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

• ASV is defined as “a reasonable estimate of an airport’s annual capacity. It accounts for differences in runway use, aircraft fleet mix, weather conditions, etc. that would be encountered over a one-year timeframe

CURRENT RUNWAY CONFIGURATION SAT’s airfield is comprised of three runways: two parallel and one crosswind. Runway 13R-31L, the primary runway, is 150 feet wide and 8,505 foot-long. Runway 4-22 crosses the Runway 31 threshold 2,000 feet from the Runway 4 threshold. Runway 4-22 is 8,504 feet long and 150 feet wide. Runway 13L-31R is a GA runway with a RDC of B-III. The two parallel runways, Runway 13R-31L and Runway 13L-31R, are separated by 990 feet. The runway configurations used to assess airfield capacity are assumed to be the same as the ones in the 2010 SAT Master Plan. They are depicted in Figure 5-9, Figure 5-10 and Figure 5-11.

AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX The aircraft fleet mix is the main factor affecting airport capacity. During arrival operations, the separation between aircraft will differ depending on the type and size of aircraft, to avoid wake turbulence. This separation will impact the number of operations per hour, and thus airport capacity. The mix index is based on the different aircraft classes, defined in the FAA AC 150/5060- 5, Airport Capacity and Delay. Each aircraft class categorizes aircraft based on MTOW and the number of engines. However, recently, the threshold of each category has changed and AC 150/5060-5 does not consider the wake recategorization (RECAT) aircraft separations in force at SAT TRACON/ATCT. For this study, the aircraft classification was modified to reconcile, as far as practicable, these separations with the methodology of the AC, as shown in Table 5-13. Table 5-13 | Aircraft Classification

Maximum Takeoff Assumed Classification for RECAT FAA AC 150/5060-5 (1983) Weight the 2018 SAT SDP FAA JO 7110.689C (2014) B: A: Single Up to 12,500 lbs. Multiple Engine Engines A: Single B: Multiple F: Engine Engines 125’ > wingspan Up to 41,000 lbs.

C & D: Up to 225,000 lbs. C 175‘ > w > 125‘ E: C 90’ > wingspan > 65’ Up to 300,000 lbs.

A: B: Over 300,000 lbs. D D w > 245’ 245’ > w > 125’

Notes: FAA AC – Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular FAA JO - Federal Aviation Administration Order lbs. - pounds RECAT – Recategorization SAT SDP – San Antonio International Airport Strategic Development Plan

Source: Miscellaneous sources.

Page | 5-18 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Figure 5-9 | Eastbound Runway Configuration

VFR (51.8%) IFR (5.4%) Sources: San Antonio International Airport; WSP USA, 2018.

Figure 5-10 | Westbound Runway Configuration

VFR (22.0%) IFR (2.8%) Sources: San Antonio International Airport; WSP USA, 2018.

Figure 5-11 | Northbound Runway Configuration

VFR (15.8%) IFR (2.2%) Sources: San Antonio International Airport; WSP USA, 2018.

Page | 5-19 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

The aircraft fleet mix used to estimate Hourly Airport Capacity, Aircraft Delay and ASV is based on the forecast. The fleet mix was separated between commercial operations and GA operations. Table 5-14 presents the fleet mix for each planning year, based on the Table 5-13 aircraft classification and two forecast scenarios (FAA-approved forecast and high growth forecast). Table 5-14 | Fleet Mix Aircraft Class 2018 (%) 2023 (%) 2028 (%) 2038 (%) 2068 (%) High Growth Forecast Scenario A 26 24 23 20 14 B 6 6 6 5 4 C 65 67 69 72 80 D 3 3 3 3 3 FAA Forecast Scenario A 26 25 23 22 18 B 6 6 6 5 5 C 65 66 68 70 74 D 3 3 3 3 3 Source: WSP USA, 2018.

FAA AC 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay, defines the mix index as the sum of the percentage of Class C aircraft and three times the percentage of Class D aircraft (%C+3*%D). Table 5-15 provides the resulting mix index for each planning year and two forecast scenarios (FAA forecast and high growth forecast). Table 5-15 | Forecast Mix Index 2018 2023 2028 2038 2068 Mix Index (High Growth) 73 76 78 81 87 Mix Index (FAA Forecast) 73 76 77 78 83 Source: WSP USA, 2018.

ANNUAL SERVICE VOLUME AND HOURLY CAPACITY Several assumptions were considered during the capacity calculations, and are listed below: • 50 percent arrivals, which is a common assumption. • No or minimal touch-and-go operations, since SAT is mostly operated by commercial aircraft. • 89 percent of operations are under VMC, based on the runway configuration. • 10 percent of operations are under IMC, based on the runway configuration.

Page | 5-20 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

ANNUAL SERVICE VOLUME ASV accounts for variations in runway use, aircraft mix and weather conditions. The current ASV can be estimated with FAA AC 150/5060-5.3 However, the estimated ASV from the FAA AC does not reflect recent changes in aircraft separations and technology, or potential airfield geometry or procedures improvements that could increase ASV. The following is a description of how the airfield capacities used in this analysis were derived. Existing Airfield Capacity: • Assessed capacity of existing runway system based on FAA capacity tables for long-range planning in FAA AC 150/5060-5 = 205,000 annual operations • Adjusted airfield capacity to reflect modified aircraft classifications, per wake turbulence recategorization (see Table 5-13) = 207,000 annual operations Optimized Airfield Capacity: • Assessed how can optimize existing capacity:

­ Reduce the use of the Northbound Runway configuration (both Runways 13RL and 4 used simultaneously)

­ Add/optimize Runway 13R-31L exits • Quantified gains in hourly capacity of each improvement:

­ Assessed results of airfield capacity enhancements at other airports ­ Used professional judgement: . Optimization of runway exits = +2 aircraft operations/hour . Enhanced pilot/ATC coordination in NextGen context = +2 aircraft operations/hour . High intensity runway operations4 = +2 aircraft operations/hour . Total = +6 aircraft operations/hour • Translated hourly capacity gains into annual capacity gains:

­ Assumed hourly gains could be achieved only 12 hours each day, 365 days a year ­ 6 x 12 x 365 = approximately 25,000 annual operations

3 Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay, 1983. 4 High intensity runway operations are enhanced pilot procedures for challenging runway occupancy times and runway vacating efficiency, to increase overall operational efficiency and thus airfield capacity. They are informal procedures and best practices tailored to individual airports, considering inefficient conditions, such as pilots not discussing the location of the high-speed exit taxiways when starting the approach, pilots taxiing at very low speed on high-speed exit taxiways, mismanagement of approach speed, performing checklists when at the runway holding position, etc.

Page | 5-21 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

• Existing capacity + optimized airfield gains = 207,000 + 25,000 = approximately 230,000 annual operations Maximized Airfield Capacity: • Started with optimized airfield capacity of 230,000 annual operations • Assumed small GA aircraft operators would relocate their facilities to the north side of the airfield (this would need to be considered in the Alternatives Development and Evaluation chapter). Today, GA operators are mostly based on the south side of the airfield. As a result, they either use Runway 13R-31L and take “slots” that could be used by commercial traffic, or they use the shorter GA runway (Runway 13L-31R) and have to cross Runway 13L-31R, possibly interfering with Runway 13R-31L operations. • Quantified impacts of relocating small GA aircraft operations to the north side of the airfield:

­ Small GA aircraft use Runway 13L-31R = no more Runway 13R-31L crossings ­ There are approximately 48,000 GA operations/year at SAT = average of 132 GA operations/day

­ Assumed a third of Runway 13R-31L crossings by GA aircraft currently occur during peak hours

­ 132 daily GA operations / 3 = 44 less operations/days in Runway 13R-31L queue ­ 44 operations * 365 days = approximately 15,000 operations/year available for commercial service aircraft on Runway 13R-31L • Estimated increase in capacity of approximately 15,000 annual operations • Optimized airfield + GA relocation = 230,000 + 15,000 = 245,000 annual operations HOURLY CAPACITY The computation of hourly capacity considers the percentage of arrival operations, the percentage of touch and goes, as well as the number and location of runway exits. Unlike ASV, FAA AC 150/5060-5 provides charts for runway restricted to small A and B aircraft. Per the AC, hourly capacity can be computed for VMC and IMC. FINDINGS The existing runway capacity is approximately 207,000 annual operations, based on the current runway operational dependencies, location of existing runway exits and the aircraft traffic mix on each runway. This finding is in line with the fact that a dependent two-runway airfield has an ASV of slightly more than a single runway. The 100 percent level of capacity of the existing airfield is projected to be reached by 2048, based on the FAA-approved forecast. The 80 percent level of capacity, which reflects a more desirable level of delay and congestion for planning purposes, could be reached as early as 2023. For the high-growth scenario forecast, the 100 and 80 percent level of capacity of the existing airfield are projected to be reached in 2039 and 2023, respectively.

Page | 5-22 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

The optimized capacity of the existing airfield could yield an ASV of up to approximately 230,000 annual operations if all three runways were used at their optimal efficiency, as described below. Compared to today’s capacity, optimal use of SAT’s airfield would postpone the points at which 100 percent capacity and 80 percent capacity are reached until 2060 and 2035 respectively, based on the FAA-approved forecast. For the high-growth scenario forecast, the 100 and 80 percent level of capacity of the existing airfield are projected to be reached in 2047 and 2030, respectively. The intermediate improvements for achieving these short-term capacity increases may include: • Reduced Runway Occupancy Time: the time spent on the runway by a landing aircraft is called Runway Occupancy Time (ROT) and is affected by the location and number of exit taxiways. Over time, aircraft types and performance have changed, and the exits at SAT are no longer ideal for today’s fleet, causing some landed and decelerated aircraft to stay on the runway longer, as they miss one exit and taxi on the runway to the next one. In addition to the number and location of taxiway exits, another capacity and operational optimization is the availability of a high-speed exit taxiway (as opposed to one at a right angle to the runway), which can allow aircraft to safely exit the runway sooner at a higher speed (benefit of about 2-5 ops/hour to a runway system). • Reduced use of Runway 4-22: the crosswind runway provides SAT with several benefits. However, because of its dependency with the other two runways, it does not add capacity, and rather slightly reduces it. Additionally, departures on Runway 4 and arrivals on Runway 22 are dependent on military operations at Randolph AFB. Benefits of the runway include convenient Runway 4 departures for northbound flights, convenient location relative to Terminal A and the cargo facilities, and serving as a back-up runway when Runway 13R-31L is temporarily closed. However, wind analysis shows that Runway 4-22 is only required for small GA aircraft (including small jets such as the HondaJet of Runway Design Code B-I), for less than 3 percent of the time on an annual basis. Reduced use of Runway 4-22 during the peak periods would slightly benefit efficiency, and therefore capacity. • Air traffic technology improvements: beyond the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) system improvements discussed in Section 5.1.4, the FAA also continues to develop and improve technology and approach procedures that may help certain airports. These technologies primarily serve to maintain airport capacity during poor weather conditions, rather than to add capacity. For instance, advanced features on runway safety and traffic flow management at hub airports like ORD and SFO optimize the use of their intersecting runways. Such air traffic management improvements could be a benefit to SAT by minimizing delays during poor weather, but would not materially increase ASV. Further capacity increases of the existing airfield (Maximized Capacity) could be achievable with relocation of smaller based GA aircraft facilities to the other side of Runway 13L-31R. This would make Runway 13L-31R available to these users without requiring a runway crossing, and would eliminate queueing with larger aircraft for Runway 13R-31L. Whether this is feasible will need to be assessed in the alternatives analysis, but this would represent the maximum-use

Page | 5-23 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements scenario of the SAT airfield. This could increase capacity to approximately 245,000 annual operations (“maximum capacity” of existing runway configuration). Additional runway(s) can increase capacity beyond this “maximized capacity”. The Alternatives Development and Evaluation chapter will determine the best long-term capacity solutions for SAT. However, in general terms, the following incremental capacity benefit would be realized by additional runway(s): • A dependent parallel runway with a 700 to 2,500-foot separation from Runway 13R- 31L would be an air carrier-capable runway. This could be an extended and upgraded version of Runway 13L-31R, as was studied in a previous master plan, or a new runway. Such a runway would increase the ASV from an optimized 230,000 to around 260,000 annual operations. This enhancement would defer reaching 80 percent capacity to 2049 using the FAA-approved forecast, and 100 percent capacity beyond 2068. For the high- growth scenario forecast, the 100 and 80 percent level of capacity of dependent runways are projected to be reached in 2056 and 2039, respectively. • An independent parallel runway with a separation from Runway 13R-31L centerline of at least 3,000 feet5 would allow simultaneous independent approaches (assuming certain air traffic management improvements would be implemented). Such a runway would increase SAT’s ASV to 440,000 operations. This would meet airfield demand beyond 2068 for both the FAA-approved and high-growth scenario forecasts. Figures 5-12 and 5-13 depict the timeframes for reaching 80 percent and 100 percent capacity of various airfield layouts with the baseline and high-growth forecast scenarios, respectively. It is not known if a parallel runway will be needed by the end of the planning horizon (2038), or if enhancing existing Runway 13R-31L would provide adequate airfield capacity. However, even if enhancing the existing runway will provide adequate capacity through 2038, a new runway will eventually be needed, and it is prudent to plan for it, and reflect it on the Airport Layout Plan to provide airspace and land use protection.

5 Dual simultaneous precision instrument approaches are normally approved on parallel runway centerline separation of 4,300 feet. On a case- by-case basis, the FAA can consider proposals utilizing separations down to a minimum of 3,000 feet where a 4,300-foot separation is impractical. When feasible, this reduction of separation requires special high update radar, monitoring equipment, etc. Page | 5-24 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Figure 5-12 | Total Annual Operations vs Airfield Capacity (Baseline Forecast)

Source: WSP USA, 2019.

Figure 5-13 | Total Annual Operations vs Airfield Capacity (High-Growth Forecast)

Source: WSP USA, 2019.

Page | 5-25 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Based on FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5, the capacity of the airfield is 91 aircraft operations per hour with good weather conditions (VMC) and 56 operations per hour with reduced visibility and cloud ceiling (IMC). As shown in Table 5-16, the existing airfield will not be saturated during the peak hours through the next fifty years, for both forecasts scenarios. Table 5-16 | Peak Hour Operations and Calculated Hourly Capacity Operations 2018 2023 2028 2038 2068 Peak Hour Operations – High Growth 36 40 43 49 74 Peak Hour Operations – FAA Forecast 36 39 41 44 NA Visual Meteorological Conditions Hourly Capacity 91 89 90 88 85 Instrument Meteorological Conditions Hourly Capacity 55 55 55 55 55 Source: WSP USA, 2019.

5.1.4 NAVIGATIONAL AIDS AND APPROACH PROCEDURES Runway approach procedures are discussed in the Inventory of Existing Conditions (Chapter 2). Precision approaches are available to Runways 4, 13R and 31L. These three runways have ILS CAT I equipment, and only Runway 13R is ILS CAT II capable. Runway 22 is a non-precision runway and Runways 13L and 31R are visual only runways. The control tower manager indicated that the current equipment and procedures are adequate during low visibility conditions. A potential new runway might be equipped with ILS CAT I or CAT II, based on a cost-benefit analysis considering preferred use (arrival/departure) and precision procedures available in the future. The need for new ground-based infrastructure (ILS localizer and glide slope antennas) will be evaluated with the availability of satellite-based precision approach procedures. NextGen is the FAA’s plan to modernize the NAS through 2025. The primary goal of NextGen is to address the effects of air traffic growth by increasing airspace capacity and efficiency while simultaneously improving safety, sustainability, and accessibility. As part of NextGen implementation, Area Navigation (RNAV) procedures have been set up at SAT. Runways 4, 22, 13R and 31L have RNAV GPS (Global Positioning System) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) procedures. RNP procedures require onboard equipment providing the air crew with monitoring and alerting capabilities to fly a specific path with a higher accuracy. Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) is a framework for defining navigation performance requirements. PBN includes both RNAV and RNP specifications. It represents an evolution toward satellite-based navigation, making flying independent from ground-based infrastructure. Work on PBN evolutions of RNP procedures at SAT is in progress by the FAA. Although RNP approach procedures have visibility minima close to ILS CAT I minima (200 feet and ½ SM), they are officially non-precision approaches at this time. With the progress of technology, the improvement of satellite-based vertical guidance and the evolution of regulations, it is expected RNP procedures can achieve precision approach requirements in the future.

5.1.5 AIRSPACE INTERACTIONS Randolph Air Force Base (RND) is located 12 miles east of SAT. Its parallel runways extended centerlines intersect with the SAT Runway 4-22 extended centerline. While ATCT personnel at

Page | 5-26 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements both airports coordinate and manage the occasional interference in traffic, use of SAT’s Runway 4-22 tends to stop when RND is active. As a result, although today’s occasional use of SAT’s Runway 4-22 is manageable, increased or regular use of Runway 4-22 (or another runway in a similar alignment) would increase dependency on RND. As such, it is not recommended to consider primary runways (arrival or departures) that would interfere with RND operations (ie, in the Runway 4-22 alignment).

5.1.6 SUMMARY OF AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS

• Runway 13L-31R remains B-III:

­ Install 20-foot wide shoulders (recommended only) ­ Widen and lengthen blast pads to 140 x 200 feet • Runway 13R-31L:

­ Install shoulders (25-, 35- or 40-foot wide for ADG IV, V and ADG VI respectively) ­ Widen blast pads (200, 220 or 280 feet wide for ADG IV, V or ADG VI respectively) ­ Increase separation with Taxiway G (500 or 550 feet for ADG V or ADG VI respectively) • Provide 10,700-foot long departure runway • Runway areas:

­ Mitigate incompatible land uses in Runways 4, 22, 13L and 31L Protection Zones • Taxiway design:

­ Widen Taxiway E (east of Taxiway N) from 40 feet to 75 feet ­ Widen Taxiway J (north of Runway 13R-31L) from 40 feet to 50 feet ­ Widen Taxiway P from 40 feet to 50 feet ­ Add shoulders to all taxiways accommodating ADG IV aircraft and larger ­ Redesign terminal apron and service road to avoid penetrating the Taxiway H OFA ­ Taxiways M and P high-speed runway exits should not connect directly to another runway

­ Taxiway B should not connect to the outer of two parallel taxiways (Taxiway H) ­ Install high-speed exit taxiways as needed • Consider airfield capacity improvements to accommodate high-growth forecast scenario

Page | 5-27 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

5.2 PASSENGER TERMINAL FACILITIES A major element of the SDP is the passenger terminal building. The Airport has a single terminal complex consisting of two terminals/concourses that are connected at both departures and arrivals levels and share a common curb: • Terminal A was opened in 1984. It is acknowledged that Terminal A has numerous functional deficiencies and that many of its building systems are at or past the end of their useful lives. • Terminal B was opened in 2010. As it is much newer than Terminal A, it was built to more currently accepted standards. Developing a terminal facilities program begins with examining the adequacy of each existing component (baseline) to serve current activity. Forecast changes in activity are applied to the baseline to develop recommendations for future planning horizons. These recommendations use actual activity and facilities at SAT as a baseline, and are the subject of quantitative, as well as qualitative, analyses. Although some "industry standard" criteria are used, the recommendations for future facilities are based on local conditions and circumstances.

5.2.1 DESIGN LEVEL ACTIVITY Airport terminal facilities are sized to accommodate the peak hour passenger volumes of a design day. Annual enplanements are typically an indicator of overall airport size; however, peak hour volumes more accurately determine the demand for airport facilities based on the specific user patterns of a given airport. Peak hour passengers are typically defined as Peak Hour-Average Day-Peak Month (PHADPM) passengers, and are also often referred to as Design Hour passengers. The Design Hour measures the number of enplaned and deplaned passengers departing or arriving on aircraft in an elapsed hour of a typically busy (design) day. The Design Hour typically does not correspond exactly to a "clock hour," such as 7:00-7:59, but usually overlaps two "clock hours", for example 7:20-8:19 reflecting airline scheduling patterns. The Design Hour is typically not the absolute peak level of activity, nor is it equal to the number of persons occupying the terminal at a given time. It is, however, a level of activity that the industry has traditionally used to size many terminal facilities. The number of persons in the terminal during peak periods, including visitors and employees, is also typically related to Design Hour passengers. Each airport has its own distinct peaking characteristics, because of differences in airline schedules, business or leisure travel, long or short haul flights, and the mix of mainline jets and regional aircraft. These peaking characteristics determine the size and type of terminal facilities. Thus, two airports with similar numbers of annual passengers may have different terminal requirements, even if the Design Hour passenger volumes are approximately the same.

Page | 5-28 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

EXISTING ACTIVITY Since the Airline Deregulation Act took effect in 1978, most major airlines have developed "hub and spoke" route systems, such as American Airlines' hubs in Chicago and Dallas/Ft. Worth, Delta Airlines' hubs in Atlanta and Detroit, United Airlines' hubs in Chicago and Denver, etc. At these hubs, “banks” of flights occur when most passengers change planes to reach their destination. These banks of connecting flights form a series of peaks during the day - typically 7 to 10 peaks per day. A few carriers, such as Southwest Airlines or JetBlue Airways, have ‘focus cities’ with 9 to 10 daily departures per gate, but operations are not as concentrated for formal connection scheduling. The destination cities served from the airline hubs are referred to as "spokes". Individual airline schedules at the spoke cities are generally tied to the connecting banks at the hub. Most airlines have similar scheduling patterns, and these tend to reinforce each other at the spoke airports resulting in, for example, a large number of departures between 6:00 a.m. and 6:30 a.m. at SAT. As passenger volumes on specific routes increase, the number of flights also tends to increase, which can fill in the ‘valleys’ during the day. The four major carriers at SAT, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Southwest Airlines and United Airlines, as well as Alaska Airlines, Allegiant Air, and Frontier Airlines, serve domestic destinations. An additional four international carriers provide service to Mexico and Canada – Aero Mexico, Air Canada, Interjet and Volaris. The daily pattern of flight activity and passenger peaking at SAT is typical of spoke activity at a medium sized airport (medium hub in FAA terminology). Morning departures have flights to all the major hub destinations served from SAT and other selected markets. In the evening, there are corresponding arrivals, which serve to position equipment for the next day's departure peak. There are also several mid-day secondary peaks for both arrivals and departures. Figure 5-14 shows typical weekday activity in June 2018.

PROJECTED DESIGN HOUR ACTIVITY The forecast chapter outlined a range of forecast scenarios in addition to the FAA's TAF. The base Master Plan 20-year forecasts through 2038 are the primary basis for facilities planning. However, the Airport wishes to evaluate the capability of the terminal and other facilities to support both the High Growth forecasts for 2038 and a very long-term forecast for up to 50 years (2068). All these forecast levels have been considered to test the question of “Will it fit?”. PEAK MONTH PASSENGER The peak month averaged 9.5 percent of annual enplanements over the past five years and occurred in July most years. This was assumed to continue in the future. DESIGN HOUR PASSENGERS An estimate of the existing design hour passenger volume as a percentage of daily activity was made based on analyses of scheduled seats and assumptions as to flight load factors on busy days. This applies to combined domestic and international passengers.

Page | 5-29 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Figure 5-14 | Terminal A and B Peak Hour Scheduled Seats

Source: Hirsch Associates, 2018.

Page | 5-30 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

As shown in Figure 5-14, the weekday morning enplaning peak hour has 2,265 seats, accounting for 12.8 percent of the daily departing seats. Based on observations and discussions with the airlines, it is assumed that the peak hour has a 90 percent average load factor in the peak month, or approximately 2,040 passengers. Airline annual system-wide load factors have been growing from historic levels and are now approximately 85 percent. Applying this average load factor to daily departing seats (17,680) would be an estimated 15,030 busy day enplaning passengers. Thus, the enplaning design hour represents 13.6 percent of daily enplaning passengers, as compared to 12.8 percent of departing seats. Similar calculations were made for design hour deplaned and total passengers and are presented in Table 5-17. Table 5-17 | Forecast Design Hour Passengers

Forecast Activity Level 2018 (est.) 2023 2028 2038 2038 High 2068 High

Annual 4,873,000 5,731,000 6,283,000 7,234,000 8,349,000 16,118,000 Enplanements

Peak Month Enplanements % of Annual Enplanements 9.6% 9.5% 9.5% 9.5% 9.5% 9.5% Peak Month Enplanements 466,620 544,400 596,900 687,200 793,200 1,531,200

Average Day/Peak Month (31 days) Enplaned Passengers 15,050 17,560 19,250 22,170 25,590 49,390

Design Hour Passengers Percentage of daily activity in the design hour 1/ Enplaned 13.6% 13.6% 12.9% 12.9% 12.3% 11.0% Deplaned 2/ 13.5% 13.5% 12.8% 12.8% 12.2% 11.0% 2/ Total 18.0% 18.0% 17.1% 17.1% 16.2% 14.6%

Design Hour Passengers Enplaned 2,050 2,390 2,490 2,860 3,140 5,460 Deplaned 2,030 2,370 2,470 2,840 3,120 5,420 Total 2,710 3,160 3,290 3,790 4,160 7,220 Notes: Est. = estimated High = high growth forecast scenario 1/ Based on June 2018 weekday scheduled seats. Assume ratios remain constant through 2023; with 5% reduction by 2028. Remain constant for Base forecast in 2038, but reduce additional 5% in High Growth.

Reduce additional 10% for 2068. 2/ Based on daily enplaned passengers.

Source: Hirsch Associates, 2018.

In the near term (2023), it is assumed that airlines will continue to reinforce the current peaks, either with additional flights or larger aircraft. As additional service (either frequency or destinations) is added, some would be expected to occur off-peak, or in secondary peaks, which

Page | 5-31 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements would reduce the design hour factor. For the medium to long term (2028 and 2038), the design hour factor was reduced by 5 percent. For the 2038 High Growth scenario, the design hour factor was reduced an additional 5 percent. For the 2068 High Growth scenario (very long-term), design hour factors were reduced a further 10 percent. Although some airlines report a limited number of connecting passengers at SAT, for planning purposes, all passengers are assumed to be O&D. International design hour activity varies seasonally and by day of the week. While there are currently multiple arrivals from Mexico City and Monterey (both in Mexico) at mid-day, the largest peaks occur on the weekends with overlapping arrivals from Cancun (Mexico), using larger aircraft. The Cancun peak, with a 90 percent load factor, is assumed to represent the design hour for international arrivals. The design hour is assumed to grow proportionately with annual international passengers, but may shift in time if widebody services are introduced.

5.2.2 AIRCRAFT GATES The number of gates needed to support forecast activity is a critical element in determining the overall size and configuration of the terminal complex. A "gate" is defined as an aircraft parking position near the terminal, which is used daily for actively loading and unloading passengers. A gate may have a passenger loading bridge or be ground loaded. The SAT terminal complex has notionally 25 gates. However, Gate A1 is not used because of its proximity to an airfield access gate and lack of holdroom space. Gate A16 exists only as a holdroom and has no passenger boarding bridge (PBB). Thus, there are effectively 23 gates. The June 2018 schedule was analyzed to determine gate utilization. Figure 5-15 illustrates the number of aircraft parking positions, including hardstand/remain overnight aircraft (RON), required to support the 2018 summer day schedule. A 20-minute buffer time between a scheduled departure and the next arrival is assumed. This shows that the maximum number of aircraft on the ground was 35 during the overnight period. All the aircraft were larger regional jets or mainline narrowbody aircraft falling within ADG III.

Page | 5-32 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Figure 5-15 | Aircraft Parking Positions Requirements

Source: Hirsch Associates, 2018.

Figure 5-16 illustrates the same schedule, but only for active gates. The assumptions in this analysis are that a hardstand/RON aircraft requires a gate from 50 minutes before departure time or 30 minutes after arrival. These would be the parameters by which an aircraft may be towed to or from a remote hardstand/RON parking pad. The peak active gate demand is between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. for 20 gates. Thus, the 23 active gates are considered well-utilized for the morning peak, with only a few gates potentially occupied by hardstand/RONs after the main morning departures bank.

Page | 5-33 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Figure 5-16 | Active Gate Aircraft Parking Positions Requirements

Source: Hirsch Associates, 2018.

Gate demands have been estimated for each of the forecast planning activity levels. Methodologies used to project future gate demand include ratios of annual passengers per gate, daily flights per gate, and design day flight schedules projections. Since design day flight schedules were not developed for the forecast years, this approach was not used.

ANNUAL PASSENGERS PER GATE APPROACH The first approach (Table 5-18) uses the current ratio of annual passengers per gate, adjusted for forecast changes in fleet mix and annual load factors at each forecast level. This methodology assumes that the pattern of gate utilization will remain relatively stable. The increase in passengers per gate would be the result of increases in enplanements per departure (because of fleet seating capacity and/or passenger load factors), as opposed to increasing numbers of departures per gate.

Page | 5-34 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Table 5-18 | Projected Aircraft Gate Demand – Annual Passengers per Gate Approach

Enplaned Enplaned Enplaned Passengers Departures Passengers/Departure Passengers/Gate Gates 2017 4,431,532 42,090 105 192,700 23 2018 (est.) 4,873,000 43,700 111 211,900 23

2023 5,731,000 49,100 117 221,800 26 2028 6,283,000 52,900 119 225,800 28 2038 7,234,000 60,100 120 228,800 32 2038 High 8,349,000 69,000 121 229,900 37 2068 High 16,118,000 118,400 136 258,600 63 Notes: Est. = estimated High = high growth forecast scenario

Source: Hirsch Associates, 2018.

The baseline for the existing enplanements per gate factor is the number of gates in use. All 23 usable gates were considered active. The ratio of passengers/gate for each forecast year was calculated by multiplying the current (2018) factor by the percentage increase in passengers/operation. For example, the factor would increase from 211,900 enplanements/gate (2018 data) to 221,800 for 2023, based on enplanements per departure increasing from 111.5 to 117 in the near term. This would increase further to 229,900 enplanements/gate by 2038 (High Growth forecast, or HG) without any further increase in the number of daily departures per gate. Future gate requirements were then estimated by dividing annual forecast passengers by the estimated passengers per gate factor for that forecast period. For example, in the 2038 HG scenario, 8.349 million enplanements divided by 229,900 enplanements/gate results in a demand for 37 gates.

DEPARTURES PER GATE APPROACH The first methodology assumes that the pattern of service at SAT is stable. While this may be true at many airports and for some airlines at SAT, it is likely that gate utilization will experience variations for other airlines, as was observed when additional service was added. The average number of daily departures per gate (turns per gate) increased from 5.2 in 2017 to an estimated 5.4 in 2018. Further increase in turns per gate can be assumed. While Southwest Airlines routinely schedules 8 or 9 turns per gate, this is not typical of other airlines. Increased gate utilization was assumed over time, but was capped at an average of 6.0 turns per gate by 2038, representative of the activity of a typical medium-sized airport. For the Departures per Gate approach (Table 5-19), the ratio of annual departures/gate for each forecast year was calculated by multiplying the current (2018) factor by the percentage change in assumed daily departures/gate. For example, the factor would increase from 1,900 departures/gate (2018) to 1,960 for 2023, as average daily departures per gate increased from 5.4 to an estimated 5.6.

Page | 5-35 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Table 5-19 | Projected Aircraft Gate Demand – Departures per Gate Approach

Enplaned Daily Annual Passengers Departures Departures/Gate Departures/Gate Gates 2017 4,431,532 42,090 5.2 1,830 23 2018 (est.) 4,873,000 43,700 5.4 1,900 23

2023 5,731,000 49,100 5.6 1,960 25 2028 6,283,000 52,900 5.8 2,030 26 2038 7,234,000 60,100 6.0 2,100 29 2038 High 8,349,000 69,000 6.0 2,100 33 2068 High 16,118,000 118,400 6.0 2,100 57 Notes: Est. = estimated High = high growth forecast scenario

Source: Hirsch Associates, 2018.

Future gate requirements were then projected by dividing annual forecast departures by the estimated departures per gate factor for that forecast period. For example, in the 2038 HG scenario, 69,000 departures divided by 2,100 departures/gate results in a demand for 33 gates.

RECOMMENDED AIRCRAFT GATES REQUIREMENTS The results of the two gate methodologies are summarized in Table 5-20. Airlines would require fewer gates under the Departures per Gate approach. Table 5-20 | Projected Aircraft Gate Demand Number of Gates 2018 25 Passengers/Gate Method Departures/Gate Method Recommended 2023 26 25 26 2028 28 26 27 2038 32 29 31 2038 High 37 33 35 2068 High 63 57 63 Note: High = high growth forecast scenario

Source: Hirsch Associates, 2018.

Typically, from a Master Plan perspective, the higher number of gates from the Passengers per Gate approach should be used to preserve a land envelope for terminal development. For financial feasibility, a lower gate demand is typically seen as more conservative. It is recommended that an average of the two approaches be used. The exception is for the very long- term 2068 forecast, where the higher gate number is recommended to test the ability of the Airport to accommodate this potential level of activity.

Page | 5-36 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

5.2.3 PASSENGER TERMINAL Terminal facility requirements for an airport (the terminal program) are a function of the specific and unique characteristics of that airport. These include the design levels of passenger and aircraft activity, the number and type of airlines serving the airport, the operating requirements of the airlines, and local factors, such as the proportions of leisure vs. business travelers, locally originating passengers, etc.

TERMINAL CAPACITY METRICS Unlike airfield facilities, the capacity of each element of a terminal facility can vary, depending on the level of crowding and/or processing/waiting times considered acceptable. In many cases, the degree of acceptability may also vary depending on the configuration of the terminal space and the level of amenity provided. Thus, the 'capacity' of a terminal can vary significantly. LEVEL OF SERVICE The term “World Class” has been used to describe some airports around the world and by many other airports as an aspirational goal. What “World Class” actually means is subject to debate. • In the 9th Edition of the International Air Transport Association (IATA)’s Airport Development Reference Manual (ADRM), published in 2004, the term is defined as “top- rated airports from worldwide passenger surveys”. These airports “usually have airport layouts that allow for efficient airline operations and passenger terminal designs that are passenger friendly”. The ADRM lists 20 key characteristics from the passenger and airline perspectives. • The ADRM then lists a series of standards, including maximum queuing times for major processes, minimum area per passengers for passenger queues and seating areas, percentages of passengers seated in various areas, and several airline operational metrics such as wheel stop to last bag delivery, and minimum connecting times. • For terminal functional areas, such as queues or seating areas, the “World Class” standards generally correspond to LOS ‘C’. LOS ‘C’ was recommended as the design objective as it provides good service and comfort with acceptable delays at a reasonable cost. This applies to the design hour levels of activity. The same basic criteria are recommended in the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 25, Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design. • In the current release of the ADRM (10th Edition, 2016), the term “World Class” does not appear. The various LOS metrics - from A (excellent) to F (unacceptable) - were revised to “Over-Design”, “Optimum” and “Sub-Optimum”. In most cases, the Optimum range corresponds to the former LOS ‘C’ areas. Maximum waiting times in some cases are shorter than the 9th Edition “World Class” (a higher LOS) and in other cases are longer (a lower LOS). The ADRM 9th Edition LOS metric will be used in this analysis. It should be noted that most time-based levels of service are outside the Airport’s control, in that U.S. Airlines, TSA, CBP and others ultimately determine staffing levels and processes that affect

Page | 5-37 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements a passenger’s waiting time and experience, regardless of the number and size of facilities provided by the airport. The approach taken in developing terminal facilities requirements for SAT was to review the plans and areas of the terminal, make observations of passenger activity, and discuss with airport and airline staff how well the present facilities are functioning. These observations, coupled with calculations of area per passenger, per gate, or other determinant of demand, were compared to generally accepted industry planning factors (LOS ‘C’). From these comparisons, a planning factor for each terminal component was determined and used to project facility requirements. As noted previously, Design Hour passengers were used for passenger processing to which LOS ‘C’ criteria were applied. Much of the design day (as well as most of the year) has less activity than the Design Hour, as depicted in Figure 5-17. Figure 5-17 | Terminal Level of Service if Facilities are Sized for Level of Service ‘C’

Source: Hirsch Associates, 2018.

Page | 5-38 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Thus, the effective LOS of a terminal designed for LOS ‘C’ will be at LOS ‘B’ or ‘A’ most of the time. Figure 5-17 illustrates this using ratios of area previously published in the ADRM 9th Edition. If LOS ‘C’ areas are used for the peak hour, over 90 percent of the day passenger activity would result in areas/passenger of LOS ‘B’ or ‘A’. The program areas developed were based on the utilization of existing facilities and on projected trends. Table 5-21 presents the program data in seven columns: • Column 1 - Existing Facilities: These are the areas measured from architectural plans of the terminal, and the current functions as observed. • Column 2 - Base Year 2018 Activity: These areas represent the facilities that would be needed to support levels of passenger activity for the base planning year. These values may differ from existing conditions and either highlight deficiencies in existing facilities, or facilities with excess capacity. These differences help establish whether existing ratios of space per unit of demand are appropriate to use for planning. • Columns 3 through 7 - Recommended Facilities (2023-2068): These are the areas recommended to support each level of design hour passengers and the associated annual enplanements for each forecast level. The timing of the needed improvements would be based on the actual passenger growth rates. It should be noted that the terminal space program represents a starting point for terminal planning. It is generally considered a minimum program supporting the design hour levels of passenger activity. As such, it does not refer to any specific terminal concept or gate configuration. When a final terminal concept is chosen, the gross terminal area may differ from the total square footage presented in the tables. For example, the amount of secure and non-secure circulation may vary from the program as a result of terminal configuration and location of the security checkpoint, whereas the amount of airline space should be relatively independent of the concept selected.

Page | 5-39 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Table 5-21 | Terminal Facilities Requirements

Page | 5-40 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Page | 5-41 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Notes: High = high growth forecast scenario LF = linear feet NBEG = narrwobody equivalent gate Pos = positions SF = square feet

Source: Hirsch Associates, 2019. GATE METRICS Comparisons between airports, or between alternative concepts, are frequently made based on passengers per gate, or terminal area per gate. But these lack a consistent definition of the term

Page | 5-42 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

"gate". To standardize the definition of "gate" when evaluating aircraft utilization and requirements, a statistic referred to as a Narrow-Body Equivalent Gate (NBEG) index, is used, as shown in Table 5-22. This statistic allows normalizing the apron frontage demand and capacity to that of a typical narrowbody aircraft gate. The amount of space each aircraft requires is based on the maximum wingspan of aircraft in its respective aircraft group. FAA ADG used to define runway/taxiway dimensional criteria were used to classify the aircraft. ADG IIIa was added to more accurately reflect the Boeing 757 aircraft, which has a wider wingspan than ADG III, but is substantially less than a typical ADG IV aircraft. Table 5-22 | Narrow-Body Equivalent Gate Index

Airplane Design Group Maximum Wingspan Typical Aircraft NBEG Index I - Small Regional <49' Metro 0.4

II - Medium Regional <79' SF340, CRJ 0.7

III - Narrowbody/Large Regional <118' A320, B737, DHC8, E175 1.0

IIIa - B757 (winglets) <135' B757 1.1

IV - Widebody <171' B767, MD11 1.4

V - Jumbo <214' B777, B787, A330, A350 1.8

Notes: NBEG - Narrow-Body Equivalent Gate Source: Hirsch Associates, 2018.

In developing terminal facilities requirements, the apron frontage of the terminal, as expressed by the NBEG index, is a good determinant for some facilities, such as secure circulation. Different terminal concepts can also be more easily compared by normalizing different gate mixes. The concept of Equivalent Aircraft (EQA) is similar to that of NBEG; it is a way to look at the capacity of a gate. EQA, however, normalizes each gate based on the seating capacity of the aircraft that can be accommodated, as summarized in Table 5-23. Table 5-23 | Equivalent Aircraft Index

Airplane Design Group Typical Seats Typical Aircraft EQA Index I - Small Regional 25 Metro 0.2 II - Medium Regional 50 Saab 340, Bombardier CRJ 200 0.4 III - Large Regional 90 Bombardier CRJ 900, Embraer ERJ 175 0.6 III - Narrowbody 145 Airbus A320, Boeing 737, McDonnell-Douglas MD80 1.0 IIIa - B757 (winglets) 185 Boeing 757 1.3 IV - Widebody 280 Boeing 767, McDonnell-Douglas MD11 1.9 V - Jumbo 400 Boeing 777, Boeing 787, Airbus A330, Airbus A350 2.8 Note: EQA - Equivalent Aircraft

Source: Hirsch Associates, 2018.

Page | 5-43 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

To have a relationship with the physical parameters associated with the NBEG, the basis of EQA is also a ADG III narrowbody jet. Most aircraft in this class typically have 140-150 seats. This establishes a basis of 1.0 EQA = 145 seats. Recently, larger ADG III aircraft with 170-180 seats have become more common, but the original seat basis was retained to maintain consistency with historic data and trends. As with the concept of NBEG, smaller aircraft may use a gate, but the EQA capacity is based on the aircraft seating configuration typically in use. While most terminal facility requirements are a function of design hour passenger volumes, some airline facilities are more closely related to the capacity of the aircraft. Thus, the EQA capacity of the terminal can represent a better indicator of demand for these facilities. In the following program analysis, design hour passengers, NBEG and EQA are used to estimate the demand for terminal facilities.

AIRCRAFT GATES AND HOLDROOMS The total number of gates needed to support forecast activity is a critical element in determining the overall size and configuration of the terminal complex, based on the methodology used for total gates described previously. GATE MIX All the usable gates at SAT have PBBs. As noted previously, the current demand is for ADG III gates only, either for mainline narrowbody aircraft or larger regional jets. The airport has a number of larger capacity (Boeing 757) gates in Terminal A and one widebody-capable (ADG V) gate in Terminal B. These are occasionally needed for diverted flights from Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) or William P. Hobby International Airport (HOU), but are not needed to support regular activity. Based on the annual aircraft mix forecasts, all domestic gates are expected to remain ADG III in the future. International arrival gates, however, will need to accommodate widebody aircraft in the near term, if the airport’s air service development objectives are met. Based on aircraft design trends, these gates should be capable of handling ADG V aircraft. It is recommended that at least two widebody (ADG V) gates be available to provide redundancy, but that they be configured with dual PBBs, so that each could serve two ADG III aircraft most of the time. The required number of future international aircraft gates would be highly schedule-dependent, but it is recommended that terminal development plans provide flexibility to add ADG V gates in a similar 2:1 ratio as needed. HARDSTAND/REMAIN OVERNIGHT AIRCRAFT PARKING As described in the Inventory of Existing Conditions chapter, there are nine designated hardstand/RON parking positions near the terminals. Current hardstand/RON demand exceeds that number, requiring aircraft in need for hardstand/RON positions (when contact gates are occupied) to be parked on cargo aprons and other locations. It is expected that hardstand/RON parking position demand will increase in the near term, even as the number of contact gates increases, because of the scheduling patterns of most airlines. Longer term, the number of hardstand/RON parking position needs are expected to stabilize, although this is highly dependent on individual airline schedules.

Page | 5-44 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

HOLDROOMS Holdrooms, or gate lounges, requirements are based on the mix of gates and the average seating capacity of each class of aircraft. The holdroom area consists of the passenger seating/lounge area, the airline's ticket lift podium and circulation. The amount of seating/lounge area is dependent on the OS) the Airport wishes to provide. The LOS is based on the aircraft load factor, the percentage of passengers seated vs. standing, and the average area per seated or standing passenger. The current holdrooms vary in size and configuration by terminal. In Terminal A, the holdrooms are approximately 30 feet deep, while in Terminal B, they are approximately 37 feet deep. These are both considered adequate depths to allow different types of boarding queues. It is noted, however, that the four international swing gates in Terminal A (Gates A6 - A9) have internal ramps to the PBB door, which force all boarding into the concourse corridor, at times blocking passenger flows. Typically, holdrooms are planned for 80 percent aircraft load factors, with 50 to 80 percent of passengers seated and the balance standing. This was considered LOS C to B, and typically assumes a large amount of secure concessions area where many passengers may wait. For SAT, 80 percent of passengers seated is recommended. This net of 64 percent of aircraft capacity compares favorably to the more recent IATA ADRM 10th Edition recommendation of 50 to 70 percent of holdroom occupants seated. It should also be noted, however, that both airline systemwide and peak hour load factors are exceeding 80 percent in the U.S., and airport planners are considering using higher aircraft load factors. Offsetting this to some extent is the availability of seating in nearby concessions. With 80 percent of design passengers seated, the remaining 20 percent are assumed to be either standing or elsewhere in the terminal, until the boarding process begins. When holdrooms are paired, which is the case at SAT, the amount of seating and standing area is typically reduced by 10 percent. A 240 square-foot (8-foot wide) boarding/deplaning corridor was added to the requirements (assumes an average 30-foot deep holdroom). The corridor effectively acts as an extension of the loading bridge door. Each ticket lift podium position is allocated 5 feet for width, although many airlines use 3-4-foot wide positions. The depth of the podium and back wall is typically 8 feet, and a 15-foot deep queuing area is provided. The average assumed aircraft seating capacity vs. holdroom size are shown in Table 5-24. The narrowbody aircraft size represents a mix of the aircraft sizes serving SAT. The widebody size represents a smaller long range aircraft (Boeing 787/Airbus A330), which might serve the destinations being considered as part of ongoing air service development efforts. Table 5-24 | Average Seating Capacity and Holdroom Size

Aircraft Seats Area (SF) Narrowbody 160 2,150 Widebody 250 3,090 Source: Hirsch Associates, 2018.

Page | 5-45 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

The existing holdroom areas available meet the requirements for 23 active gates. This includes the A16 holdroom, which is available to serve nearby gates but cannot be used as a separate gate. Holdroom areas should also include space for CBP Outbound Interview rooms of 100 SF per two international gates.

AIRLINE SPACE Airline space includes both exclusive leased areas (e.g. offices and operations), and joint use space (e.g. baggage claims). The amount of exclusive leased areas is generally proportional to the amount done in-house. As such, the air carriers serving SAT were contacted to determine how well their facilities met requirements for current levels of activity. The larger air carriers provide almost all their customer and aircraft services (‘below the wing’) in-house. Other carriers use third-party ground handlers or personnel from the larger air carriers for some or all these services. Each airline area is configured differently, and functions such as airline offices and operations are not easily distinguished in some cases. Recommended facilities for each function have been developed separately. AIRLINE TICKETING AND CHECK-IN (ATO COUNTER) The ATO counter traditionally has consisted of staffed agent positions. As airlines provide more self-service kiosks, the definition and configuration of check-in function has, and will continue to, change. To estimate future ATO requirements, staffed positions and kiosks were combined as Total Equivalent Check-in Positions (ECP). Ticketing/check-in positions are typically based on the number of design hour enplaning passengers; the number of design hour departing flights; the number of airlines; the time distribution of passengers arriving at the terminal; and the percentage of passengers checking in at the ticket counter vs. curbside check-in, using a self-service kiosk or electronically. Most of this information was not directly available for all airlines. A planning factor was developed, which reflects these characteristics to the extent known, current ATO counter and kiosk utilization (not necessarily leased positions), and understood excesses and shortfalls. At present, all ATO counters and kiosks are exclusive use, although Aeromexico is handled by their alliance partner Delta. There is a total of 124 ECPs, categorized as follows: • 51 staffed counters in use • 4 dedicated bag drop counters • 12 multifunction kiosks in-line with the ATO counter • 37 multifunction kiosks located within the check-in queue • 4 kiosks for boarding pass printing only • 16 vacant counter positions

Page | 5-46 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Some of the airlines are providing bag tag printers at the kiosks to allow self-tagging. This trend, along with increased use of kiosks and other check-in options, is expected to continue. From the number of kiosks in use and airline discussions, it is assumed that a little more than 50 percent of the passengers currently use kiosks or other self-service check-in options. Based on industry trends, the percentage of kiosk use is expected to increase in the medium-term future to between 55 and 60 percent. The smaller international and domestic carriers do not have kiosks. These airlines are not expected to have kiosks at SAT unless common use kiosks are provided in the future and the airlines opt into the common use system. The number of forecast ECPs was converted to conventional linear positions to establish the length of the ATO counter. Locations for kiosks are a combination of airline preference and the physical constraints of the ticket lobby. For SAT, it was assumed that future kiosks and bag drop positions would be located in-line with the staffed counters, at a similar ratio as today. Most domestic carriers can use a 6-foot double counter plus a shared 30-inch bag well for an average of 4.25 feet per agent. There are also breaks in the ATO counter to allow personnel access to individual ATO office areas and end counters typically without bag wells. This increases the average ATO counter length for planning to typically 5.5 linear feet (LF) per position, which is similar to existing conditions. The ATO counter depth is typically 10 feet from face of counter to back wall for domestic terminals to provide space for the counter, agent work space and a baggage conveyor parallel to the counter. The existing counter depths average approximately 11 feet, because of differences in counter module designs. This slightly higher ratio has been assumed for programming. AIRLINE OFFICES Airline offices include the ATO offices and other airline administrative spaces. At SAT, like most airports, the ATO offices are located immediately behind or adjacent to the ATO counters, to provide support functions for the customer service agents. Typically, these are 30-35 feet deep along the length of the counter. At SAT, these vary from 42 feet deep (Terminal A) to 40 feet deep (Terminal B, plus a circulation corridor). Other offices may include functions such as housing the airline station manager. The amount and location of these offices (ATO, operations area, office location on a terminal upper level, etc.) is dependent on individual airline requirements and preferences, as well as space availability. Discussions indicate that offices in the ATO area are undersized for many carriers, but there are also non-airline functions located within these areas. For planning, the existing ratio of offices per linear foot of ATO counter has been increased slightly. AIRLINE OPERATIONS Airline operations include all the support spaces for aircraft servicing and aircraft crews. The demand for airline operations areas is a function of the size and types of aircraft being operated and individual airline operating policies. Because many airlines do not identify their specific space requirements at this stage of planning, and future airlines cannot be identified, a program for airline operations areas is typically based on the number/size of gates (expressed as EQA) and airlines at an airport. There are also third party ground handlers providing ‘below the wing’

Page | 5-47 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements services for smaller carriers. These ground handlers may have consolidated support facilities outside of the terminal. Discussions indicate that airline operations spaces are undersized for many carriers, and that at a minimum, many of these areas need to be reconfigured for better functionality. For planning purposes, the current ratio of operations spaces per EQA has been increased to a more typical value for a spoke airport. AIRLINE CLUBS AND LOUNGES Airlines typically provide membership clubs based on their level of activity at an airport, the number of club members living in or regularly traveling to the airport area and other marketing considerations. Only United Airlines has a club at SAT (United Club). The club is considered small (53 seats and a maximum fire code capacity of 84), and does not have all the facilities and amenities normally provided. Both United Airlines and American Airlines station managers noted that many frequent American Airlines passengers living in San Antonio have joined the United Club since it is accessible to American Airlines gates. Based on these discussions, it has been assumed that United Airlines would want to expand to approximately 4,000 SF and that American Airlines would want a similarly sized club. A third 4,000-sq. ft. club might be viable, and supported by Delta Air Lines or as a third-party club open to all passengers. In the future, the total amount of airline club space is expected to increase. BAGGAGE SERVICE OFFICES Baggage service offices (BSOs) are typically required by airlines with sufficient activity to warrant staffing;, the four larger carriers at SAT (American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines and Southwest Airlines) have BSOs. Other airlines’ late bags are presently stored in the ATO offices, which is inconvenient. A new BSO for Frontier Airlines, and a common baggage lock-up area for smaller carriers are being constructed in the former rental car counter area of Terminal A. BAGGAGE MAKE-UP Baggage make-up includes the make-up units or conveyors, the cart loading areas and baggage tug/cart (baggage train) maneuvering. The checked baggage inspection and outbound baggage systems are operated and maintained by an airline consortium. While the system is common-use, each airline has its own make-up units. There are seven sloped bed and flat plate make-up units of various sizes and configurations. The capacities range from 8 to approximately 20 staged carts, for a total of approximately 85 carts. All the make-up units allow for bag carts to be staged parallel to the make-up units. Some are separated far enough to allow bag trains to bypass the units, whereas others must operate on a ‘first-in, first-out’ basis. Baggage cart staging demand is a function of aircraft size (seat capacity) and the number of hours a flight is in the make-up process (typically 2 hours for a domestic flight). This has usually resulted in a demand for one cart per 50 aircraft seats, or 3-4 carts for a narrowbody flight. Not all carts are staged simultaneously, with filled carts being moved to a holding area or the gate area while empty carts are staged. With the increased baggage fees and lower percentages of passengers with checked bags, the total number of bag carts has been declining for many airlines. Based on

Page | 5-48 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements modeling of the make-up process at other domestic airports, a planning factor of 3.5 staged carts per EQA has been assumed. CHECKED BAGGAGE SCREENING Because of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, all checked baggage is subject to screening for explosives. The Airport has a fully automated, in-line Checked Baggage Inspection System (CBIS) for screening and sorting outbound bags. The screening matrix includes five L3 6600 Explosive Detection Systems (EDS) units. These are arranged so that three units primarily service bags coming from Terminal A and two units from Terminal B. However, there are numerous conveyor cross-overs to allow bag loads to be balanced between the EDS units when necessary. Bags that alarm in the EDS units (Level 1) are subject to on-screen resolution (Level 2) while within the baggage system. If a TSA screener cannot determine if the bag can be cleared, the bag is diverted to the Checked Bag Resolution Area (CBRA), where screeners using images from the EDS open the bag and check its contents with Explosives Trace Detection (ETD) (Level 3). There are eight CBRA inspection tables. Cleared bags are then re-inducted into the baggage system toward the make-up units. Oversized bags (either manually identified or measured by the CBIS as too long for the EDS units) are sent directly to the CBRA for manual inspection. Based on discussions with the airlines, the baggage system consortium operator and TSA, an average of 0.7 checked bags per passenger is estimated during the peak months. Each EDS unit has a rated processing capacity of 500 bags/hour. In the preferred operating configuration of 3 units (2 active plus 1 spare) for Terminal A and 2 units (1 active plus a spare) for Terminal B, the CBIS should have a design capacity of approximately 1,500 bags/hour. However, it is reported that when volumes exceed approximately 1,200 bags/hour, conveyor back-ups begin and the system throughput is reduced. Modifications to the system controls are planned, and although an increase in sustained capacity is expected, it has not yet been quantified. For planning purposes, a lower EDS throughput rate (400 bags/hour) was assumed, which recognizes the split nature of the current system. Longer term, more advanced EDS units are anticipated to be installed, requiring fewer EDS units; however, the area required per advanced EDS unit typically increases. As such, the program area is considered reasonable for Master Planning-level programming. Baggage Claim Offload Baggage offload includes: the portion of a flat plate, direct feed claim unit upon which the bags are placed or the input conveyor for a sloped bed claim unit, the adjacent baggage train lane and work area, and a by-pass lane for baggage trains. A 75-foot long off-load zone is assumed to allow a four-cart baggage train to be unloaded. Plans for the expanded FIS (see Section 3.6) do not indicate an enclosed offload area similar to existing conditions; the offload area is assumed to be a non-enclosed canopy over the input conveyor.

Page | 5-49 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

BAGGAGE TRAIN CIRCULATION A percentage of baggage handling space for baggage train circulation around and between the bag make-up and off-load areas is included for planning. Ten percent of baggage handling space is a typical factor, but for SAT, 15 percent was used, because of a large amount of baggage train circulation within the existing terminal complex. This assumes that future terminal concepts will require relatively less circulation than at present. However, the final configuration of the terminal may require more space or less space. RAMP CONTROL TOWER There is no Ramp Control Tower at SAT. All aircraft pushbacks are either handled by ATCT staff if into a movement area (taxiway), or coordinated between airline ground staff, such as between Terminals A & B. An allowance is included for a small Ramp Control Tower to coordinate pushbacks among airlines and between the concourses. The final size and location(s) will be determined when the concept is finalized. AIRLINE SYSTEMS An allowance of 5 percent of airline operations area was included in the Program to accommodate airline systems that may not be considered in the terminal’s mechanical/electrical area estimates. These systems typically include computer and communications rooms, which have increased in size and complexity as more airline functions are automated. The allowance is not intended to cover large, centralized ground power motor/generators or centralized pre-conditioned air systems.

DOMESTIC BAGGAGE CLAIM There are six flat plate baggage claim units – three in each terminal: • The three “W”-shaped claims in Terminal A have approximately 135 LF of claim frontage (i.e. where passengers can access the bags). The separation between the ‘arms’ of the claim units is 25 feet, which is less than recommended, but the relatively shallow arms of the claim units offset this shortfall to some extent. • Terminal B has two “T”-shaped claim units, each with 125 LF of claim frontage, and one “L”-unit with 110 LF of claim frontage. The separation between the units is approximately 44 feet, and although there are intermediate columns, the distance between the columns and claim units (±20 feet) is adequate. Baggage claim requirements are based primarily on design hour deplaned passengers, the concentration of these arriving passengers within a 20-minute period and to a lesser extent, checked bag per passenger ratios. Observations at most U.S. airports indicate that many domestic passengers arrive at the baggage claim area before their bags are unloaded onto the claim units. At an airport such as SAT, virtually 100 percent of the passengers are waiting prior to first bag delivery. The result is that the claim unit should be sized for the estimated number of passengers waiting for baggage, because most bags are claimed on the first revolution of the claim unit.

Page | 5-50 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Based on current schedules, the peak 20 minutes represents 50 percent of the design hour activity. This is a typical arrival concentration at spoke airports. The percentage of passengers who have checked baggage is estimated at 60 percent during the peak hours. The existing bag claim sizes are considered adequate for smaller and medium sized narrowbody aircraft, especially with fewer passengers checking bags. For the longer term, larger claim units (150 LF) are recommended, to provide more flexibility for larger aircraft or multiple smaller flights. The baggage claim area is recommended to be 35 SF per foot of frontage to provide adequate queuing and circulation space with flat plate claim units. A 30-foot separation between adjacent claim units is recommended. An allowance for oversized baggage delivery was included. This would be for oversized baggage slides of adequate size for skis and other large checked items. There is no dedicated area to deliver oversized baggage in Terminal A, and only a 7-foot-wide slide in Terminal B.

CONCESSIONS Terminal concessions include all the commercial revenue-producing functions serving the traveling public, as well as some services that may not directly produce revenue. Concessions programming at this level of planning are based on factors of square feet per 1,000 annual enplanements. Planning factors reflect the characteristics of the passengers, but may also be heavily influenced by the types of concessions, and especially their location. In both terminals, approximately 90 percent of the food/beverage and retail concessions are currently located inside security, which is desirable by most passengers. GROUND SERVICES/INFORMATION COUNTERS There are information counters on the departures and arrivals levels of both terminals, staffed by volunteer “Airport Ambassadors”. Future terminal processors are assumed to have similar counters. Rental car counters have been relocated to the Consolidated Rental Car Center across from the terminals, and are not considered part of the terminal program. The space formerly occupied by the rental car counters and offices (included as existing space) is anticipated to be converted to baggage service offices and other uses. There are no counters for other ground transportation modes. Super Shuttle has a kiosk near the exit door from the Terminal A bag claim. FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICES The planning ratio (in terms of square feet per 1,000 annual enplanements) was increased approximately 10 percent over the existing ratio. NEWS/GIFT/SPECIALTY This category includes news, gift, retail and specialty shops. The planning ratio was increased to provide a larger retail space in the secure area, and accommodate a potential small non-secure news stand operation, possibly in association with the non-secure food/beverage operation or a vending operation.

Page | 5-51 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

OTHER SERVICES This category usually includes ATMs, vending, arcades and other services. The terminal has one small vending/arcade area near the baggage claim. A similar planning ratio was assumed for these services in the future. UNITED SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS (USO) The USO operates a lounge in the arrivals area between Terminal A and Terminal B, and provides hospitality for traveling service members and their families. Because of the large military presence in the San Antonio area, especially for training, there are large numbers of service members traveling weekly. The 2,300 sq.ft. facility has seating for 30 people and an effective capacity of approximately 40 people. On busy days, demand exceeds this capacity. USO staff have witnessed service members look in and turn away because of overcrowding. Support spaces within the lounge (baggage storage, food storage, etc.) are also undersized. Discussions with staff indicate that approximately 4,500 sq.ft. would be needed to serve current levels of activity. This area is projected to increase in proportion to design hour enplaned passengers. CONCESSION SUPPORT Concession support consists of storage areas, preparation kitchens, employee lockers and administrative offices. The food/beverage support is primarily the adjacent kitchen and preparation areas. A small storage room for the food/beverage is located within the ATO#2 office/operations area. There is no remote storage for the news/gift shop. Existing concession support space is limited, and all concessionaires have shortages of on-site storage. This is especially acute because of the need for screening deliveries prior to being moved into secure areas of the terminal. For Programming, 25 percent of the customer-serving areas was assumed for concession support.

PUBLIC SPACES Public spaces include most of the non-revenue producing areas of the terminal, such as queuing areas, seating and waiting areas, restrooms and circulation. Some of the public space elements are directly related to design hour passenger volumes, whereas others are functions of other facility requirements. TICKET LOBBY The ticket lobby includes ATO counter queuing area, self-service kiosks and cross circulation: • In Terminal A, there is approximately 45 feet from the ATO counter to the escalators and store fronts. Of this, 25 feet re designated for passenger queuing and the location of most self-service kiosks. The remaining 20 feet for cross circulation are often partially occupied by check-in queue overflows from some airlines. During the peak hours, the overflow from the security screening equipment and checkpoint (SSCP) can also extend through the ticket lobby and block circulation.

Page | 5-52 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

• In Terminal B, there is approximately 47 feet from the ATO counter to the main column line, with additional circulation beyond to the window wall. Passenger queuing and kiosk depth varies from 25 feet to 30 feet. Cross circulation is effectively limited to passengers accessing the escalators to the Rental Car Center bridge at the end of the United Airlines ATO counter. Passenger overflow from the SSCP uses the area adjacent to the ATO counters and does not directly block circulation in the same way as in Terminal A. The minimum dimension from the face of the ticket counter to any obstruction to cross circulation should be 45 feet to 50 feet, for airports with traffic similar to SAT. Existing dimensions in Terminal B are adequate. Terminal A has some constraints, but some of this is due to inadequate capacity and queuing of the SSCP (see Section 3.5.2). Although the trend toward increased self-service check-in has led some in the industry to predict the extinction of ticket lobbies, thus far, airlines are using ticket lobbies for different configurations of kiosks and baggage drop counters. A 50- foot deep ticket lobby is recommended for future development. SECURITY SCREENING CHECKPOINT With the changes in security inspection procedures and equipment, processing rates have changed at most airports. The TSA also continues to mandate new security SSCP configurations. • Terminal A has six SSCP lanes. The carry-on baggage X-rays have varying configurations in terms of the length of divest tables and composure (pick-up) conveyors/rollers. Lanes with shorter composure rollers can cause delays for the X-ray if bags and bins are not cleared out by passengers. The four lanes for regular passenger screening have Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) body scanners, which are slower than Walk-Through Metal Detectors (WTMDs), but often the limiting factor for processing rates is the baggage X-ray. TSA Pre-Check and Clear passengers have two lanes available. • Terminal B has four SSCP lanes: three regular lanes and one Pre-Check lane. All lanes have the same configuration. Two AIT scanners can serve all four lanes, but are not used for Pre-Check passengers. Both checkpoints have multiple entrances and queues: • Regular passengers • Premium passengers screened at regular lanes • TSA Pre-Check passengers • Clear members, using Pre-Check lanes • Wheelchair and employee entrance • Known crewmembers bypass the screening lanes and enter through the passenger exit lanes Activity surveys carried out by the consulting team on Friday, June 8, 2018 (referred to as “Freak Week”) and Monday, June 11, 2018, included SSCP process times and queue lengths during the

Page | 5-53 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements early morning and late afternoon departures peaks. Queue lengths are illustrated in Figure 5-18 and Figure 5-19. The following observations were made: • Both terminals have similar numbers of departing seats in the early morning peak hour: 1,340 for Terminal A and 1,240 for Terminal B. However, as shown in the figures, the lower SSCP capacity of Terminal B leads to longer queues. • In the afternoon, Terminal A has multiple secondary peaks between 16:00 and 19:00, whereas Terminal B has less than half that amount of activity. It was noted that not all Terminal A lanes were staffed for the full busy period, which may partially explain the long queues. These queues overflowed the available SSCP queuing area and extended into the ticket lobby. Observed throughput rates (measured when queues were present) were also variable, both by day, morning vs afternoon, and by terminal. In Terminal A, throughput rates were higher in the morning than afternoon on both days, and 20 to 25 percent greater than Terminal B on comparable days and times. Variations in processing rates by lane are often observed, but a consistent difference between checkpoints is unusual. An average of both checkpoints’ regular lanes throughputs was in the range of 150 passengers/hour/lane. Discussions with TSA confirmed that this is a reasonable planning value given current procedures. Throughput rates for Pre-Check lanes were significantly higher, but the number of Pre-Check users is highly variable by time of day and flight. For terminal planning, all lanes have been assumed to have the capacity of regular screening lanes. During design hours, a 10-minute wait time was assumed, but the queue area has been sized to accommodate a 20-minute queue. Because the current terminals have separate SSCPs, an ‘inefficiency’ factor of 20 percent has been added to increase the total number of lanes as compared to a single SSCP location.

Page | 5-54 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Figure 5-18 | Checkpoint Queue Lengths Friday, June 8, 2018

Source: Hirsch Associates, 2018.

Page | 5-55 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Figure 5-19 | Checkpoint Queue Lengths Monday, June 11, 2018

Source: Hirsch Associates, 2018.

Page | 5-56 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

For current activity, this results in a demand for 13 lanes, which is consistent with observations, discussions and planned expansion of the Terminal A SSCP (removal of Dunkin Donuts to add an additional security lane). The program area includes the actual SSCP equipment, divesting/bag repacking areas and TSA support space that is required at the checkpoint. This can vary by equipment configuration. Current TSA configurations require up to 60 feet by 30 feet wide (per pair of lanes) for the equipment, plus additional space for document checking, trace detection and passengers to re- pack their carry-ons. The program has assumed an 85-foot deep zone to accommodate all these functions. Additional area for TSA support at the SSCP (5 percent) has been included. SECURE CIRCULATION Secure circulation typically consists of the central corridor of the concourses and adjacent egress stairs. Existing corridor widths differ by terminal: • Terminal A’s corridor width varies. In the single-loaded gate area from gate A1 - A7, the corridor is 19 feet wide, including the columns, for a clear width of approximately 16 feet. In the double-loaded gate area from A8 - A16, the holdrooms extend to the centerline of the columns, reducing the available width to approximately 17 feet, with the same clear width of 16 feet. • The corridor varies in width in the central concessions area, narrowing to as little as 12 feet opposite the SSCP where the recomposing seats are located. • Terminal B’s corridor is 26 feet wide between holdrooms, widening to 30 feet in the central concessions zone. Columns are located within the holdrooms, so the full width is available. Terminal planning practice would recommend a 30-foot wide clear corridor for double-loaded concourses without moving walkways, and between 20 feet to 25 feet for a single-loaded corridor, depending on whether there are significant uses across from the holdrooms and the number of gates. Corridors with moving walkways would be 45' wide for double-loaded concourses and 35- 40' wide for single loaded concourses. Ancillary uses would be located outside of these corridors. Thus, Terminal A is extremely undersized as noted during peak periods. Terminal B is closer to recommended dimensions and generally functions adequately. The program area is based on an area per equivalent concourse length determined by gates expressed as NBEG. The actual amount of secure circulation required will depend on the terminal configuration. For programming, it has been assumed that a mix of single-loaded and double- loaded concourses would be used. Future terminals are assumed to have moving walkways. STERILE INTERNATIONAL ARRIVALS CIRCULATION Arriving international passengers must be kept separate from other passengers, visitors or unauthorized airline employees until they have cleared all FIS inspections. This requires a separate corridor system from the aircraft gate to primary inspection. Terminal A has four international arrivals gates (A6 - A9), which access a 10-foot wide sterile corridor. It is located on a mezzanine level between the arrival and departure levels. Some internal ramping in the holdrooms and exterior ramps allow separation of arriving international and departing passengers.

Page | 5-57 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Unusually, the sterile corridor ramps down to continue all the way to gate A1, but no other gates can access the corridor at present. It is understood that international GA arrivals used gate A1 at times prior to the construction of the separate GA FIS across the airfield. This unused extended corridor overstates the existing effective sterile corridor area by approximately 4,000 SF. Sterile corridors should be sized for single direction passenger flow - typically 10 to 15 feet wide, depending on whether a moving walkway is required. Because departing passengers can use the same gates as international arrivals, control doors and monitoring of the corridor system is required to prevent mixing of arriving and departing passengers. At this point in the planning process, it is assumed that international gates would be single-loaded, or on one side of a double-loaded concourse. The program area allowance assumes that the gates and FIS will be in reasonable proximity with each other and that moving walkways would not be required. PUBLIC SEATING Public seating areas include general waiting areas near the ticket lobby, domestic baggage claim areas and concessions. These are typically in non-secure areas of the terminal. The bulk of the seating/waiting area would be located to provide an area for domestic meeters/greeters outside of security or near the baggage claim. Airports typically provide seating for a portion of the design hour total passengers and their visitors. Because of security restrictions, the number of well-wishers at most airports have declined dramatically and these ratios are estimated to be low. For terminal programming, it is assumed that non-secure seating would be provided for 10 percent of design hour total passengers, the well-wishers for the enplaning passengers and the meeters/greeters of deplaning domestic design hour passengers. A separate estimate was made for the international meeters/greeters lobby, which is located at the exit from the FIS, and was sized for all the meeters/greeters of the design hour terminating international passengers. RESTROOMS Restrooms should have at least as many toilets for women as toilets and/or urinals (fixtures) for men. Newer building codes in some cities require 25 percent to 50 percent more fixtures for women than for men in buildings such as terminals. This is consistent with methodologies presented in ACRP publications (see ACRP Report 130) when a 50/50 male/female gender split is assumed. None of the restroom locations at SAT meet the recommended fixture ratios. A few locations have equal numbers of men and women fixtures or more women fixtures (two Terminal A concourse locations and the departure and arrival restrooms in Terminal B). All the other locations have more fixtures for men than women. The program area has been divided between the main terminal locations (departure and arrival levels) and the secure concourse area. The terminal factor is based on design hour passengers and their estimated visitors. The minimum number of toilets and/or urinals is recommended to be 10 for men and 12 for women in the secure locations. Because the main demand on secure

Page | 5-58 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements restrooms is for arriving passengers, it is recommended that these be located conveniently for passengers proceeding from gate to baggage claim. The planning factor is based on a restroom with 12 men and 16 women fixtures for every eight EQA. In addition to handicapped access toilets, sinks and urinals, it is recommended in transportation facilities such as airports that companion care restrooms be provided. These unisex restrooms allow an elderly or disabled person to be accompanied into a restroom by another person who assists the disabled person. All the SAT restroom locations have a companion care restroom. The program restroom area includes a companion care restroom for each restroom module. GENERAL PUBLIC CIRCULATION Other public circulation includes the corridors, vertical circulation elements and other architectural spaces, which tie the public functional elements of the terminal together. The existing terminals have a relatively high percentage of public circulation. The program area is based on a percentage (30 percent) of these functional areas: ticket lobby, domestic baggage claim, baggage service offices, holdrooms, concessions (excluding concession support area), airline clubs and other public areas. The percentage is a first approximation and will also vary with the terminal configuration. The split between secure and non-secure (public) circulation is also a function of the terminal concept, however in the table, the public circulation allowance was included as non-secure circulation.

FEDERAL INSPECTION SERVICES Federal Inspection Services (FIS) facilities are required at all airports with international flights. The exception are most flights from Canada and a limited number of other airports with U.S. pre- clearance facilities. These passengers are treated the same as domestic arrivals. In Terminal A, Air Canada’s flights are pre-cleared and do not use the FIS. The CBP inspection process flow has changed and continues to evolve since the last formal facilities standards (Airport Technical Design Standards, or ATDS) were published in June 2012. Tables for support facilities (November 2017) also do not fully reflect the current primary inspection flow. Thus, one challenge for FIS planning is to accommodate the current process flow while maintaining flexibility for future changes. CBP procedures require that all passengers be processed through the primary inspection counters. Self-service kiosks (where available) can be used by US citizens, permanent legal residents and some others depending on visas. Secondary passenger and baggage inspection is based on more selective procedures using computer-based lists of passengers, roving agents, designations of 'high-risk' and 'low-risk' flights and other selection techniques. A ‘unified secondary inspection area’, which incorporates both secondary passenger and baggage inspection, is typically located after baggage claim. The SAT FIS is unusual in that baggage claim is located prior to Primary Inspection. Modifications and expansion of the FIS are in process and are expected to be completed during 2019. The renovated FIS will retain the ‘bags first’ flow and will introduce self-service kiosks. The “Existing Facilities” column in Table 5-21 reflects conditions when the modifications are complete. It should

Page | 5-59 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements be noted that the following facilities requirements reflect a more conventional passenger flow with baggage claim between primary and secondary inspection areas. INTERNATIONAL BAGGAGE CLAIM Prior to Primary Inspection, passengers collect their checked bags from the bag claim devices. The expanded FIS will have two sloped bed claim units with 125 LF of claim frontage. These are suitable for smaller narrowbody aircraft and/or a lower percentage of passengers with checked bags as is experienced at SAT. In the near to mid term, larger claim units are recommended to accommodate wide-body aircraft. PRIMARY INSPECTION The current Primary Inspection process flow relies more heavily on different types of automation to accommodate higher passenger volumes with fewer CBP officers. The basic Primary process is as follows: US Citizens, Legal Permanent Residents and Canadian Citizens can use automated processes: • Global Entry (GE) kiosks: after using the kiosks, passengers pass by an officer for verification of their receipt. • Mobile Passport Control (MPC): passengers use an app on a mobile phone to enter data prior to arriving at the FIS, then proceed to a CBP officer. • Automated Passport Control (APC) kiosks: passengers use a kiosk to enter data and have their photo taken for the receipt. Visitors to the U.S. with some types of passports (Canadian citizens, B1/B2/Visa Waiver Program) can also use the APC kiosks. Most APC users can go to an officer for verification of their electronic or printed receipt. The remaining passengers are directed to a ‘triage’ officer to take care of issues that the automated systems flag. SAT has GE kiosks whose usage varies significantly by flight. There are currently no APC kiosks, although APC kiosks are planned for the expanded FIS. Because there is no data on APC/MPC usage, assumptions were made based on other airports with small FISs. A maximum wait time of 10 minutes was assumed for APC kiosks, with zero wait time for GE. SECONDARY INSPECTION After Primary Inspection, passengers enter a queue for Exit Control. Based on notations on their primary inspection receipt, passengers either exit the FIS or are directed to Secondary Inspection. At some airports, CBP has been testing a system where there is no Exit Control, but passengers are escorted from Primary Inspection to Secondary. This is not yet widespread, so an Exit Control queue has been included in the program. CBP uses a Unified Secondary where all passport and baggage inspection occurs. Secondary Inspection has: • A waiting area and interview rooms for passport related issues. • Agriculture inspection X-ray and counter for bags from originations that may contain food and other prohibited plant or animal products.

Page | 5-60 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

• Customs inspection counter, X-ray and search rooms for inspection of bags for other items. Passengers connecting to domestic flights re-check their bags after exiting the FIS at a counter outside the FIS. Connecting passenger volumes are extremely low at present. The recent code share announcement between Frontier and Volaris has the potential for some connecting traffic. Longer term, potential flights to Europe and/or South America also have some connecting potential. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT AREAS The total amount of space, as specified in the CBP Technical Design Standards, is based on the rated capacity of the FIS. The CBP administrative and support spaces should be located within the sterile perimeter, and be accessible from the primary and secondary processing areas. Other government agencies may have offices within the FIS. These include Public Health Services/Centers for Disease Control (PHS/CDC), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), and Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE). None of these currently have offices at SAT. Discussions with CBP do not indicate that such offices are expected soon and have not been included for programming. FEDRAL INSPECTION SERVICES CIRCULATION FIS circulation is based on 10 percent of the inspection and baggage claim areas. Circulation within the administrative and support areas is included in those sub-totals. The actual amount of circulation would depend on the configuration of the FIS. As noted above, CBP processes and procedures are continually evolving, and official facilities guidance lags what is observed in the field. Estimating future FIS facilities requirements is thus more subject to variability than other passenger processes. The gross area of the FIS in the program table should be considered a general area for master planning with less focus on the specifics (other than baggage claim) than on other portions of the terminal program.

OTHER AREAS AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION/OPERATIONS OFFICES Airport administrative offices are located on the upper mezzanine of Terminal A and in a portion of the Terminal A ATO office block. Terminal operations offices are in other locations scattered throughout the apron level of both terminals. Many other administrative and operations functions for the Airport are located outside of the terminal. An Administration Space Study is underway, and will include a detailed assessment of the Airport’s office needs and locations. This will be included in the Support Facilities section. Until that is completed, it has been assumed that the same amount of office and operations space will remain in the terminal complex. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICES In addition to the passenger and baggage screening equipment and adjacent search areas, the TSA requires space for supervisors’ offices, training, agent break rooms and storage. These are

Page | 5-61 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements presently located in Terminal B next to the United Airlines ATO counter, in the Terminal A ATO office block, and in three locations on the apron level of Terminal A. TSA’s main offices and administrative support is located off-airport and these are expected to remain in that location. The terminal program for TSA space is limited to that needed to support the SSCP and checked baggage screening operations, and is based on the number of SSCP lanes and EDS units. LOADING DOCKS AND RECEIVING A terminal should have a loading dock and receiving area to allow deliveries from the public roadway system, as well as removal of trash generated by terminal users. The TSA requires screening of deliveries for secure side concessions before these are moved into or through secure areas. A single receiving area was assumed for the existing terminal complex, with additional receiving areas as the terminal complex expands. The actual area would be dependent on terminal configurations. NON-PUBLIC CIRCULATION Non-public circulation provides access to airline operations, airport administration areas, concession support, and other areas typically not used by the traveling public, as well as restrooms used by airport tenants and screening checkpoints for employees. Non-public circulation also includes elevators for concessions servicing. These should be sized and rated for freight of the type required by the various concessions. Non-public circulation should be located as to provide delivery and trash removal to as many concessions as possible without requiring passage through public spaces. The program area is based on 12 percent of non-public functional areas, and includes an area for employee restrooms. MECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL/UTILITY At the planning and programming stage, utility areas are typically estimated as a percentage of the enclosed functional areas of a terminal. This will vary with the provision of central plant functions either within the terminal or remotely; and, in some cases, architectural design considerations, which may limit the use of roof-top equipment, etc. Most newer terminals are in the range of 10 to 12 percent of functional areas when there is a separate heating/cooling plant, such as at SAT. The existing terminal mechanical/electrical systems equal to approximately 11.4 percent of the functional area of the terminal. For planning purposes, a factor of 12 percent of functional areas was used. JANITORIAL/STORAGE/SHOPS Janitorial, storage and shop space include the building maintenance functions that are required to be inside the terminal building. In addition to typical janitorial functions, space must be provided to store any specialized maintenance equipment for the terminal, such as lifts for high ceiling areas.

Page | 5-62 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Maintenance and storage areas are in multiple locations in the terminal and occupy space that may have been intended for airline operations. The existing overall ratio of these spaces to the functional areas (1.5 percent) was used for planning (within typical ranges). STRUCTURE/NON-NET AREAS Non-net areas are added to the recommended facility requirements to provide a better estimate of the total gross building footprint. Although the program areas are in terms of gross space, allowances must be made for exterior walls. It is also expected that buildings will have areas that are unusable or occupied by special structures. For planning, a 3 percent factor was used, which is typical of terminals with conventional designs.

5.2.4 TERMINAL CURBS Terminal curbs provide the interface between non-parked vehicles and the terminal. The curb consists of both pedestrian facilities (sidewalk) and vehicle facilities (pick-up/drop-off lanes and through-traffic lanes).

EXISTING CURB CONFIGURATIONS VEHICLE LANES At SAT, continuous curbs serving both Terminal A and Terminal B are configured as follows: • The upper level departures curb consists of four lanes. All types of vehicles, private and commercial, drop off departing passengers at this curb. A four-lane curb is typically recommended where the public is allowed to double-park. • The lower level inner arrivals curb also consists of four lanes. It is primarily reserved for private vehicle pick-ups. Hotel shuttles have an assigned pick-up area on the inner curb located beyond the end of Terminal B. • The lower level outer arrivals curb is reserved for commercial vehicles. There are zones designated for taxis, ridesharing (TNCs), parking shuttles and buses. The curb has three lanes, which is suitable for these types of vehicle use when double-parking is discouraged. Although the curbs run the full length of the terminal building, the frontages are not fully usable because of a combination of roadway geometry and design of the terminal/curb interface: • The first door into Terminal A is located approximately 75 feet from the curve where the two-lane approach road transitions into the four-lane roadway. Although this initial section of curb is marked for no stopping, vehicles for Terminal A tend to want to stop at the first door, causing bunching and double-parking. It was also observed that the outermost (4th) lane was seldom used by Terminal B vehicles to bypass Terminal A. A similar situation occurs on the inner arrivals level. • On the upper and lower levels, the two-lane approach roads do not widen to four lanes until after the curve. Drivers do not appear to want to use the outer lanes to get to the second or third doors of Terminal A or to Terminal B.

Page | 5-63 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

• There are four crosswalks on the inner arrivals level curb to reach the outer commercial curb. This reduces the effective curb length by approximately 80 feet. CURB SIDEWALKS The sidewalk along the terminal building facade should be a minimum of 12 feet wide to allow two pedestrians with luggage to pass each other comfortably. Obstructions such as columns, signs, benches or curbside check-in counters need to be considered when evaluating the sidewalk width. The sidewalks of the two terminals differ in configuration, but are the same at both upper and lower levels: • The curb in front of Terminal A is at an angle to the building grid, and the terminal facade is in the form of a ‘saw tooth’. This results in varying separations along the sidewalk between the building and curb lanes. There is also a row of columns set approximately 4 feet from the curb lanes. This is enough separation to allow car doors to open without damage and passengers to unload, but not enough for lateral movement along the curb. • At the terminal entrance doors, the distance to the curb lanes varies from 18 feet to 25 feet at each vestibule. However, between the vestibules, the distance between the building and the columns can be as little as 9 feet, which is less than recommended. This combination of varying/limited clearance and the columns tends to concentrate vehicles at the terminal entrances even more than would typically occur. • The facade of Terminal B was built parallel to the curb, so the sidewalk is a uniform width. There is approximately 20 feet of separation between the vestibule doors and vehicle lanes. • In one location, curbside check-in counters reduce the sidewalk width to approximately 12 feet. This area is also used for queuing for the curbside check-in, which can impede lateral pedestrian movement.

CURB ACTIVITY CHARACTERISTICS The planning team undertook a series of curb activity and traffic surveys on Friday, June 8, 2018 and Monday, June 11, 2018. The Friday date was selected by the Airport to coincide with “Freak Week”, when activity is very high and considered representative of the Design Day. Additional data was collected on Monday to examine variations as compared to a more typical business day. The purpose of the surveys was to determine characteristics such as modal splits at the curb, vehicle dwell times, average passenger occupancies and vehicle volumes on airport and surrounding roads. Data was collected on the departures curb from 04:00 am to 06:30 am, and from 3:00 pm - 5:00 pm. This covered the early morning peak and the late afternoon secondary peak. The departure curb was surveyed on both Friday and Monday. The arrivals curbs were surveyed from 3:00 pm - 7:00 pm, and from 10:30 pm - 12:00 am on Friday. This covered the late-night peak and the late afternoon/early evening secondary peak.

Page | 5-64 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

CURB MODAL SPLITS The curb modal splits are based the observed numbers of vehicles stopping at the curbs and do not include passengers parking in airport garages or using rental cars. The modal splits are shown in Table 5-25. Please note that it is often difficult to distinguish TNCs from other private vehicles from a distance. Thus, for the departures curb, it is likely that some private vehicles were TNCs. Table 5-255 | Curb Modal Splits

Departures Curb Arrivals Curb Private Vehicles 81% 63% Transportation Network Companies 4% 11% Shuttles (hotel, parking, etc.) 7% 4% Taxis 7% 18% Buses 1% 3% Other <1% 1% Total 100% 100% Source: Hirsch Associates, 2018. VEHICLE DWELL TIMES Dwell times were measured for a sample of vehicles using the curbs. Times were measured from when the vehicle pulled to the curb (or stopped in a double-parked lane) until it pulled away. Timing was stopped after six minutes and averages with, and without, these long-duration vehicles were calculated separately. Dwell times varied by time of day and between Friday and Monday. The times shown in Table 5-26 (in minutes) were considered the most representative for use in calculating peak curb demands. Table 5-266 | Peak Curb Demand Times

Departures Curb Arrivals Curb Private Vehicles 2.1 minutes 1.8 minutes Transportation Network Companies 1.0 minute 2.1 minutes Shuttles (hotel, parking, etc.) 1.5 minutes 1.6 minutes Taxis 2.2 minutes 2.1 minutes Buses 3.8 minutes 3.8 minutes Other 6.0 minutes 6.0 minutes Source: Hirsch Associates, 2018. AVERAGE PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE When the dwell times were measured, the number of people (assumed to be passengers) getting in or out of the vehicle were counted. As with dwell times, there were variations by time of day, but no consistent pattern was established. The ratios shown in Table 5-27 were considered the most representative.

Page | 5-65 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Table 5-277 | Peak Curb Demand Ratios

Departures Curb Arrivals Curb Private Vehicles 1.7 passenger/vehicle 1.4 passenger/vehicle Transportation Network Companies 1.3 passenger/vehicle 1.4 passenger/vehicle Shuttles (hotel, parking, etc.) 3.8 passenger/vehicle 6.3 passenger/vehicle Taxis 1.8 passenger/vehicle 1.3 passenger/vehicle Buses 8.0 passenger/vehicle - Other - - Source: Hirsch Associates, 2018.

CURB LENGTH PLANNING FACTORS The existing curb activity was evaluated to determine the current LOS and to develop planning factors related to Design Hour Passengers. These LOS calculations are based on the available curb length, and do not consider geometry or terminal entrance issues that could affect vehicle flows. The curb analysis is based on vehicle volumes measured by traffic tube counters on Friday, June 8, 2018 (see appendices for the full traffic analysis). The traffic counters provided data in 15-minute increments and measured the total vehicle flows separately for the drop-off and pick- up lanes. As shown in Table 5-28, the traffic flow during peak periods was relatively uniform with the peak 15 minutes representing 28 percent of a rolling peak hour for both drop-off and pick-up lanes. Table 5-28 summarizes calculations for: • The existing curb demands based on curb modal splits, vehicle dwell times and vehicle length • A curb demand/capacity ratio and how this translates into LOS • The curb lengths based on the range of curb lengths needed to achieve LOS ‘C’ • A curb length planning factor using the high end of the LOS ‘C’ range and the estimated peak hour passengers from June 8, 2018 The LOS criteria for curbs, as developed in ACRP Report 40, Airport Curbside and Terminal Area Roadway Operations, is expressed as the maximum demand for curbside parking divided by the effective curbside length, and is summarized in Table 5-29.

Page | 5-66 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Table 5-28 | Existing Terminal Curb Conditions

Departures

Existing Conditions - Early Morning Friday 6/8/18 Peak hour vehicles: 713 vehicles 15 min peak vehicles: 198 vehicles = 15 minutes as % of hour 28% Peak hour seats: 2,265 seats Est. peak hour passengers 90% load factor: 2,040 pax

Curb Survey Peak Vehicle Peak 15 Min. Vehicle Peak 15 Min. Modal Splits 15 Minutes Dwell Time Demand in Length Demand Vehicle Type Vehicles (min.) Minutes (ft) (ft) Private Vehicles 81% 160 2.1 336 25 550 TNCs 4% 8 1.0 8 25 25 Shuttles 7% 14 1.5 21 40 40 Taxis 7% 14 2.2 31 25 50 Buses 1% 2 3.8 8 50 50 Other 0% 0 6.0 0 35 0 Total 100% 198 715

Existing Curbfront Length: 735 ft Existing Capacity Ratio: 0.97 Existing Level of Service: B dbl park allowed [1] Required LOS 'C' Curbfront from: 550 ft to: 650 ft Departures Curb Planning Factor: Design Hour Pax 2,040 enplaned pax LOS 'C' curbfront 650 LF => 0.32 LF/design hour enplaned pax

Arrivals

Existing Conditions - Early evening Friday 6/8/18 Peak hour vehicles: 1,088 vehicles 15 min peak vehicles: 301 vehicles = 15 minutes as % of hour 28% Peak hour seats: 2,256 seats Est. peak hour passengers 90% load factor: 2,030 pax

Page | 5-67 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Public Curb Curb Survey Peak Vehicle Peak 15 Min. Vehicle Peak 15 Min. Modal Splits 15 Minutes Dwell Time Demand in Length Demand Vehicle Type Vehicles (min.) Minutes (ft) (ft) Private Vehicles 63% 190 1.8 342 25 575 TNCs na 0 2.1 0 25 0 Shuttles na 0 1.6 0 40 0 Taxis [2] na 0 2.1 0 25 0 Buses na 0 3.8 0 50 0 Other na 0 6.0 0 35 0 Total 190 575

Existing Curbfront Length: 660 ft [2] Existing Capacity Ratio: 0.87 Existing Level of Service: A dbl park allowed [1] Required LOS 'C' Curbfront from: 440 ft to: 520 ft Public Arrivals Curb Planning Factor: Design Hour Pax 2,030 deplaned pax LOS 'C' curbfront 520 LF + allowance for crosswalks 80 LF => 0.30 LF/design hour deplaned pax

Commercial Curb Curb Survey Peak Vehicle Peak 15 Min. Vehicle Peak 15 Min. Modal Splits 15 Minutes Dwell Time Demand in Length Demand Vehicle Type Vehicles (min.) Minutes (ft) (ft) Private Vehicles na 0 1.8 0 25 0 TNCs 11% 33 2.1 69 25 125 Shuttles 4% 12 1.6 19 40 40 Taxis 18% 54 1.8 97 25 150 Buses 3% 9 3.8 34 50 100 Other 1% 3 6.0 18 35 35 Total 37% 111 450

Existing Curbfront Length: 905 ft Existing Capacity Ratio: 0.50 Existing Level of Service: A single parking allowed [3] Required LOS 'C' Curbfront from: 450 ft to: 530 ft Commercial Arrivals Curb Planning Factor: Design Hour Pax 2,030 deplaned pax LOS 'C' curbfront 530 LF => 0.26 LF/design hour deplaned pax

Notes - [1] - Assumes a 4 lane curbside roadway where double parking is allowed - ACRP 40. [2] - Public curb effective length excludes 4 crosswalks (80 LF). [3] - Assumes a 3 lane roadway with a single parking curb - ACRP 40. Source: Hirsch Associates, 2018.

For example, for the departures curb: • During the morning departures peak hour, there were 713 drop-off vehicles counted, with 198 in a peak 15-minute period. • Based on the modal splits for departures, average dwell times by vehicle class and the typical vehicle length required for curb operations, the calculated demand was for 715 LF of curbside length.

Page | 5-68 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

• The effective curb front length of the combined Terminal A and Terminal B curbs is 735 LF, resulting in a demand/capacity ratio of 0.97. This is equivalent to an overall LOS B. However, as noted in Section 4.1.1, the geometry of the roadway and Terminal A sidewalks causes more double-parking at the beginning of the curb than the overall LOS would indicate. • If the future curb is planned for LOS ‘C’, the required curb length for 715 LF of demand is between 550 LF and 650 LF. This assumes that the available curb length is equally usable over its full length. • This results in a deplaning curb planning factor of 650 LF / 2,040 passengers = 0.32 LF / design hour enplaned passengers. Table 5-29 | Curb Level of Service Criteria Ratio of Maximum Demand for Curbside Parking / Effective Curbside Length Level of Service Double-Parking Allowed Double-Parking Prohibited A 0.90 0.70 B 1.10 0.85 C 1.30 1.00 D 1.70 1.20 E 2.00 1.35 F >2.00 >1.35 Source: Airport Cooperative Research Program, Report 40, Airport Curbside and Terminal Area Roadway Operations, Table 5-2, 2010.

Table 5-30 summarizes the forecast curb recommendations.

Table 5-30 | Terminal Curb Facilit y Requirements Recommended Facilities

Existing Base Facilities Year Forecast Year 2038 2018 2023 2028 2038 2068 High

Design Hour Passengers

Enplaned Domestic + International 2,050 2,390 2,490 2,860 3,140 5,460 Deplaned Domestic 2,030 2,370 2,470 2,840 3,120 5,420 Terminal Curbs

Departing Curb 735 660 760 800 920 1,000 1,750 LF Arriving Public Curb 660 610 710 740 850 940 1,630 LF Arriving Commercial Curb 905 530 620 640 740 810 1,410 LF Note: LF – linear feet Source: Hirsch Associates, 2018.

Page | 5-69 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

5.2.5 TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS IN PASSENGER TERMINALS

INSIDE THE TERMINAL Information technology and systems in the passenger journey through the airport will impact flows and waiting time. Some airports and air carriers have already deployed facial recognition to simplify the passenger journey. For instance, Delta Air Lines uses facial recognition devices at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) to verify the identity at the gate when boarding international flights, instead of scanning boarding pass and checking passports by hand. This expedites the process and minimizes the boarding time. Biometrics will be available in the very near future for other steps of the passenger journey from curbside to gate. Over the past few years, equipment manufacturers have developed suites of solutions for check- in, bag drop-off and boarding, using the same biometric passenger database. In the medium term, these solutions will reduce waiting times and increase the automation of control and identification processes from the curbside to the gate, along with other technologies such as the self-service bag drop-off kiosks. Crossing a border without having passports checked by a border agent is a reality. The Global Entry program offers a similar service at 75 international airports. For passengers who did not subscribe to Global Entry, Mobile Passport Control (MPC) allows to perform the operations preceding the physical control of passports by a CBP agent, from a smartphone. The TSA is working with the industry on developing the next generation of checkpoints with expedited processes for the most trusted passengers. Some of these systems and technologies are still emerging or being defined; as a result, their impact on future facility requirements is still uncertain. However, they will ease congestion and help enhance passenger flows and airport resources.

OUTSIDE THE TERMINAL Airport buses and GSE are turning electric (referred to as eGSE). eGSE is reducing air pollution, carbon emissions and noise at a growing number of airports. Many of these electrification projects are eligible for federal grants through the FAA’s Voluntary Airport Low Emissions Program (VALE). Impact on airports include a higher demand on electrical power and space availability for charging stations. Cost-efficient retrofit of existing facilities is possible. For instance, charging stations for eGSE at existing terminals use the same source of power than jet bridges.

5.2.6 SUMMARY OF TERMINAL REQUIREMENTS

• Aircraft gates (23 existing):

­ 2038: build 6-10 gates (for a total of 31-35 gates) ­ 2068: build an additional 18-22 gates (for a total of 63 gates) ­ Include 2 ADG V gates (for international flights) ­ Build additional hardstand/RON positions

Page | 5-70 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

• Passenger terminal requirements based on industry standards • Curbside:

­ Additional departing and arriving public curb space starting in 2023 ­ Additional arriving commercial curb space starting in 2068

5.3 AIR CARGO FACILITIES Two segments of air freight operate at SAT: • Integrated express cargo with DHL, FedEx, and UPS, and • Belly cargo, which is freight carried as payload of passenger aircraft. Integrated express carriers are located on the East Cargo Ramp, whereas passenger airlines operate a consolidated warehouse on the West Ramp. Future requirements were assessed based on surveys and interviews of the air cargo operators (station managers), and the model provided by ACRP Report 143 on Air Cargo Facility Planning and Development. Aircraft operations forecasts were input into the ACRP model. Each functional area analysis is described below: • Cargo building space: warehouse space used to store and sort air cargo and where the offices are located. • Apron area: paved airside areas used for aircraft parking during loading and unloading operations. This area also provides parking for ground support equipment (GSE). • Landside area: vehicle access to the cargo buildings and parking. The needs expressed by the air carriers and the requirements estimated with the ACRP model were balanced based on existing operations at SAT.

5.3.1 INTEGRATED EXPRESS FACILITIES Integrated express cargo is handled on the East Cargo Ramp by FedEx Corp., United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (UPS), Lynxs San Antonio CargoPort, LLC (Lynxs) and DHL International GmbH (DHL). A total of 2.3 acres of floor space and 35.3 acres of apron space are dedicated to their operations. Table 5-31 presents ramp and landside areas for: • Existing facilities • Tenants’ expected facility requirements through 2068 (surveys and interviews) • Calculated facility requirements through 2068 (using ACRP Report 143) Additionally, Table 5-31 provides truck and auto parking space requirements based on ACRP Report 143.

Page | 5-71 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Table 5-31 | Integrated Express Facility Requirements

Requirements (acres) Type of Facility 2018 2023 2028 2038 2068

Existing Cargo Building Space (2018) 2.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Expected Cargo Building Requirements (Surveys and Building - 3.1 3.1 4.5 5.7 Interviews) Calculated Cargo Building Requirements (ACRP 8.0 9.0 9.6 10.6 14.3 Report 143)

Existing Air Cargo Apron (2018) 35.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Expected Air Cargo Apron Requirements Apron - 39.5 39.5 49.4 56.0 (Surveys and Interviews) Calculated Air Cargo Apron Requirements 12.5 14.1 15.1 16.6 22.4 (ACRP Report 143)

Truck and Auto Parking Space (ACRP Report 143) 9.5 10.7 11.4 12.5 16.9

TOTAL REQUIRED SPACE 30 1/ 33.8 2/ 36.1 2/ 39.7 2/ 53.6 2/

Notes: ACRP = Airport Cooperative Research Program 1/ Total space requirements based on ACRP Report 143. 2/ Total Space requirements based on tenants’ surveys and interviews (building and apron), and ACRP Report 143 (truck and auto parking)

Source: WSP USA, 2018.

As shown in Table 5-31, tenants’ expected requirements are lower than the requirements calculated with ACRP Report 143 for building space, but significantly higher for apron space. This difference can be attributed to the organization of their operations at SAT, where a portion of cargo sorting is performed on the apron (e.g., DHL, UPS). However, the tenants’ consolidated needs (building and apron) are higher than the output of the ACRP model. Therefore, for planning purposes, the needs expressed by the tenants (building and apron) were considered, with the addition of the truck and parking requirements from the ACRP Report 143 model.

5.3.2 BELLY CARGO (PASSENGER AIRLINES) Table 5-32 summarizes belly cargo requirements through 2068, based on calculations using the ACRP Report 143 model. Existing belly cargo facilities are adequate to accommodate long-term demand.

Page | 5-72 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Table 5-32 | Belly Cargo Facility Requirements Area (acres) Type of Facility 2018 2023 2028 2038 2068

Existing Cargo Building Space (2018) 2.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A Building Required Cargo Building Space 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 (ACRP Report 143)

Existing Air Cargo Apron (2018) 5.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Apron Required Air Cargo Apron 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 (ACRP Report 143)

Truck and Auto Parking Space (ACRP Report 143) 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7

TOTAL REQUIRED SPACE 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.8

Note: ACRP = Airport Cooperative Research Program

Source: WSP USA, 2018.

5.3.3 SUMMARY OF AIR CARGO REQUIREMENTS

• Integrated carriers: need additional building space only • Belly cargo carriers: no additional needs through the planning horizon

5.4 GENERAL AVIATION FACILITIES General aviation facility demand is based on space needed for both based aircraft and itinerant aircraft. This section will assess the existing and future needs for FBO facilities (terminal, office, auto parking), as well as for aircraft storage (hangars and apron).

5.4.1 FIXED-BASE OPERATOR FACILITIES A FBO is a “commercial business granted the right by the airport sponsor to operate on an airport and provide aeronautical services, such as fueling, storing aircraft, tie-down and parking, aircraft rental, aircraft maintenance, flight instruction, etc.”6 Future needs, summarized in Table 5-33, were based on interviews with the main FBOs at SAT, and professional judgment when data was not available. Medium-term requirements (2028) include immediate needs expressed by some FBOs, and represent an increase of about two- thirds of the existing FBO facilities footprint, for a total of approximately 46 acres. Long-term

6 Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/5370-7, Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities, Appendix 1 – Definitions, Section 11-I, p. 13, August 2006. Page | 5-73 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements requirements (2038) correspond to twice the existing footprint, for a total of approximately 57 acres. At the 50-year planning horizon, an additional 38 acres would be required compared to 2038, for a total of 95 acres. Table 5-33 | Consolidated Fixed Base Operator Facility Requirements Facility Existing Footprint 2028 2038 2068 Hangars and Terminal Facility (acres) 5.5 7 12 24 Apron (acres) 23 39 45 71 Auto Parking (Landside) (acres) 2.5 5.5 7.5 14 TOTAL (acres) 28.5 46 57 95 RATIO OF TOTAL / 2018 FOOTPRINT 1 1.6 2 3.3 Source: WSP USA, 2018.

5.4.2 AIRCRAFT STORAGE FACILITIES Corporate aviation facilities at SAT consist of business aviation hangars and buildings owned by individual corporate entities (e.g., H-E-B, Lewis Energy Group, Valero Energy Corp.), as well as small business aircraft operators. GA aircraft storage facilities represent aviation hangars used to store GA aircraft of various sizes; the majority of these hangars are owned by Security Airpark. The same methodology and assumptions used for the evaluation of FBO requirements was applied to aircraft storage facility requirements. As shown in Table 5-34, there is a medium-term need for a 50-percent increase by 2028, for a total of approximately 52.5 acres, and 100-percent increase by 2038, for a total of approximately 70.5 acres, compared to 2018. An additional 15 acres is anticipated to be required between 2038 and 2068, for a total of approximately 85.5 acres. Table 5-34 | Corporate Aviation and General Aviation Storage Facilities Requirements Facility Existing Footprint 2028 2038 2068 Hangars and Terminal Facility (acres) 12 19.5 27 32 Apron (acres) 15 21.5 27.5 34.5 Auto Parking (Landside) (acres) 7 11.5 16 19 TOTAL (acres) 34 52.5 70.5 85.5 RATIO OF TOTAL / 2018 FOOTPRINT 1 1.5 2 2.5 Source: WSP USA, 2018.

5.4.3 TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS IN GENERAL AVIATION This section discusses requirements for emerging aviation users such as sUAS and Urban Air Mobility (UAM).

SMALL UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM FOR AIRPORT OPERATIONS The use of sUAS by airport operators is growing. sUAS can provide a wide variety of services, from perimeter surveillance to jet bridge inspection. Based on current investigations of sUAS uses, specific facility requirements are not necessary for sUAS. Services are typically provided by external providers on demand. In the future, airport operators might acquire UAS for their own

Page | 5-74 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements needs. However, neither should require specific accommodation from an airport long-term planning standpoint, giving the size and concept of operations of these aircraft.

URBAN AIR MOBILITY UAM encompasses the operation of sUAS for delivery and new electrical ’air taxis’ in dense, urban environments. In the United States, both are still in a research and development stage. Based on current research and draft regulations, UAM “air taxis”, which may start to operate in the 2025-2030 timeframe, will most likely follow the same regulations and concepts of operations as helicopters, with potentially slight changes based on their specificities. Provisions for a heliport or ’vertiport‘ will be explored in the Alternative Development and Evaluation chapter.

ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT There is an increased interest in electric aircraft by industry and stakeholders. While the electrification of larger commercial service aircraft seems today beyond the planning horizons of the SAT SDP, e-aircraft (new models or variant and retrofit of existing types) might be available in the short-term in the general aviation and commuter market segments. Prototypes are already flying and ongoing research projects are paving the way for this technology and its integration in the airport environment. They will most likely require high-power charging stations to recharge their batteries, similar to a 400Hz Ground Power Unit (GPU), which could be made available at the gate or on RON/hardstand parking positions.

SUMMARY OF EMERGING AVIATION USERS REQUIREMENTS • No specific facility requirements are identified • While the concept of operations of UAM are still in definition, the alternative analysis will consider provisions inspired by helicopter requirements for a future vertiport capability.

5.4.4 SUMMARY OF GENERAL AVIATION REQUIREMENTS • FBO requirements: additional 28.5 ACRES (2038) to 66.5 acres (2068) • Aircraft storage requirements: additional 36.5 ACRES (2038) to 51.5 acres (2068) • Vertiport capability

5.5 AVIATION SUPPORT FACILITIES Aviation support facilities include buildings and other structures that serve secondary roles in the operation of the Airport. They are usually located on or adjacent to the AOA. The purpose of aviation support facilities ranges from administration to storage to health and safety.

5.5.1 AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES [UNDER DEVELOPMENT]

Page | 5-75 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

5.5.2 AIRPORT OPERATIONS FACILITIES [UNDER DEVELOPMENT]

5.5.3 AIRCRAFT RESCUE AND FIREFIGHTING FACILITIES

INDEX Per 14 CFR Part 139 on Certification and Operations, for airports serving certain air carriers, the ARFF Index is based on the longest passenger aircraft that operates an average of five daily departures or over at least 1,825 annual operations: • Index A: for aircraft less than 90 feet in length. • Index B: for aircraft at least 90 feet in length, but less than 126 feet in length. • Index C: for aircraft at least 126 feet in length, but less than 159 feet in length. • Index D: for aircraft at least 159 feet in length, but less than 200 feet in length. • Index E: for aircraft at least 200 feet in length. SAT’s ARFF station is currently Index C. Index C includes most ADG III aircraft and the Boeing 757-200. Based on the forecasted fleet mix, presented in Table 5-35, the ARFF Index in 2038 would increase to Index D, to account for larger Boeing 767 and Airbus A300 aircraft. Table 5-35 | Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Index Determination Aircraft Type Aircraft Length ARFF Index 2018 Aircraft 2038 Aircraft (Feet) Operations Operations Airbus A319 111 Airbus A320 123 C 19,354 31,604 Airbus A321 146 McDonnell Douglas MD-80 148 McDonnell Douglas MD-88 148 C 6,010 0 McDonnell Douglas MD-90 153 Boeing 737-700 110 B 29,435 40,002 Boeing 737-800 130 Boeing 737 MAX 8 130 C 13,974 23,403 Boeing 737-900 138 Boeing 757-200 155 C 1,158 2,336 Boeing 757-300 179 D 229 0 Boeing 767-300ER 180 D 402 1,126 Airbus A300 (cargo only) 177 D 2,428 2,844 Airbus A330-900 209 E Airbus A350-900 198 E 0 500 Boeing 787-9 206 E Boeing 747-8F (cargo only) 250 E 0 500 Required ARFF Index C D Source: WSP USA, 2018.

Page | 5-76 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

RESPONSE VEHICLES Airports with ARFF Index D are required to operates with a minimum of three vehicles, per FAA AC 150/5220-10E, Guide Specification for Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) Vehicles. Currently, SAT’s ARFF station has four vehicles with a minimum of three operational at any time. Vehicles requirements are listed in Table 5-36. Table 5-36 | Vehicle Class Requirements Existing Requirements Vehicle Capacity (Index C) (Index D) 100-gallon Water/AFFF, and Dry Chemical (500 lbs. sodium- or Class 1 1 1 450 potassium-based), or Halogenated Agent (460 lbs.). 300-gallon Water/AFFF, and Dry Chemical (500 lbs. sodium- or 1 instead of 1 instead of Class 2 450 potassium-based), or Halogenated Agent (460 lbs.). Class 1 Class 1 500-gallon Water/AFFF, and Dry Chemical (500 lbs. sodium- or 1 instead of 1 instead of Class 3 450 potassium-based), or Halogenated Agent (460 lbs.). Class 1 or 2 Class 1 or 2 Class 4 1,500-gallon Water/AFFF. 2 1

Class 5 3,000-4,500-gallon Water/AFFF. 0 1 Source: WSP USA, 2018.

RESPONSE TIME 14 CFR Part 139 specifies that “within three minutes from the time of the alarm, at least one required aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle must reach the midpoint of the farthest runway serving air carrier aircraft from its assigned post or reach any other specified point of comparable distance on the movement area that is available to air carriers, and begin application of extinguishing agent”. Per the SAT ARFF chief, the current ARFF station location allows emergency vehicles to meet the mandated response times. Response times will be evaluated for proposed airfield layouts, to identify the need for additional ARFF stations.

STRUCTURAL RESPONSE ARFF personnel at SAT also provide structural response to emergencies occurring in/around buildings on Airport property, such as building fires, injuries, illnesses, … There are no requirements pertaining to structural response on airport. However, options will be discussed in the Alternatives Development and Evaluation chapter to provide adequate structural response.

5.5.4 AIRPORT MAINTENANCE FACILITIES SAAS airport maintenance staff expressed the need for doubling their current 5.8-acre footprint to adequately accommodate current airport operations. For planning purposes, it was assumed the future footprint would grow at the same rate as passenger enplanements. Table 5-37 summarizes the projected footprints, based on the Baseline and High Growth forecast scenarios.

Page | 5-77 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Table 5-37 | Airport Maintenance Facility Requirements (in acres) Compound Annual Growth Existing Forecast Rate 2018- 2023- 2028- 2038- Forecast Scenario Actual Needed 2023 2028 2038 2068 2023 2028 2038 2068 Baseline 5.8 11.6 13.6 15.0 17.2 26.1 3.3% 1.9% 1.4% 1.4% High Growth 5.8 11.6 13.6 15.7 19.3 36.0 3.9% 2.8% 2.1% 2.1% Note: The same growth rates were assumed for 2028-2038 and 2038-2068.

Source: WSP USA, 2018.

5.5.5 FUEL STORAGE FACILITIES In 2018, Allied Aviation provided commercial fueling services at SAT, supplying Jet A fuel for passenger and all-cargo airlines. The Airport fuel farm has two 420,000-gallon above ground Jet A tanks. FBOs and corporate tenants have their own fuel farms and handle GA fueling. Fuel storage requirements were projected based on an analysis of current fuel consumption and aircraft operations data, presented in Table 5-38. Table 5-38 | Fuel Storage Requirements

2018 2023 2028 2038 2068 Operation Forecasts - High Growth Scenario Annual Operations - Total 96,600 110,800 123,800 149,200 251,600 Peak Month (8.6% of CY Total) 8,300 9,500 10,600 12,800 21,600 Peak Month Average Day 268 306 342 413 697 Fuel Consumption Average Daily Demand (gallons) 300,000 343,379 383,139 462,658 780,735 Average Jet Fuel Dispensed per 2,241 2,241 2,241 2,241 2,241 Departure (gallons) Gross Jet Fuel Storage Volume (gallon) 348,837 399,278 445,510 537,974 907,832 1-day Required 420,000-gal. tanks 1 2 2 2 3 supply Tanks footprint area (acre) 0.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.9 Volume (gallon) 697,674 798,556 891,020 1,075,949 1,815,664 2-day Required 420,000-gal. tanks 2 3 3 3 6 supply Tanks footprint area (acre) 1.3 1.9 1.9 1.9 3.9 Volume (gallon) 1,046,512 1,197,834 1,336,530 1,613,923 2,723,496 3-day Required 420,000-gal. tanks 3 4 4 5 8 supply Tanks footprint area (acre) 1.9 2.6 2.6 3.2 5.1 Notes: CY = civil year Gal. = gallons

Source: WSP USA, 2018.

As presented in the aviation demand forecasts, aircraft departures accounted for 268 operations during the peak month average day. During this average day, around 300,000 gallons of fuel are consumed for an average of 2,241 gallons of jet fuel dispensed per departure, as depicted in

Page | 5-78 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Figure 5-20. The net usable storage capacity of the tank is 360,000 gallons, which represents 86 percent of the total tank capacity. Therefore, the jet fuel reserve requirements for a 1-day, 2-day, and 3-day supply were estimated by applying the average jet fuel dispensed per aircraft departure to the forecast average daily demand. For future planning, the number of tanks required were translated into land area to accommodate future demand for storage capacity. Currently, the fuel farm occupies 8.5 acres with 1.3 acres for the fuel tanks. To estimate the future required fuel tank needs, an area of 0.6 acre per tank was assumed. An additional 420,000-gallon tank is recommended at the end of the 20-year planning period (resulting in three tanks total), and three more in 50 years (six tanks total). This would provide the Airport with sufficient fuel reserves for two days, which is the current reserve and was deemed appropriate during stakeholder interviews. Figure 5-20 | Jet Fuel-Day Supply Requirements

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000 Storage Requirements (gallons) Requirements Storage

500,000

0 2018 2023 2028 2038 2068

1-day supply 2-day supply 3-day supply Existing Net Capacity

Source: WSP USA, 2018.

5.5.6 AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND OVERHAUL FACILITIES SAT’s MRO service providers include GA MROs (AHR Aviation, Cutter and Textron), large aircraft MROs (Aerosky, M7 Aerospace, VT SAA), and aeroframes/structures (M7 Aerospace). These

Page | 5-79 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements activities have different needs that were documented through interviews with and questionnaires to these tenants, and are summarized in Table 5-39. VT SAA, providing MRO services to air carriers, would need one additional hangar for large aircraft by 2023, with a warehouse to support its activity and an additional hangar in 2038. Table 5-39 | Consolidated Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Facility Requirements (in acres) Type of Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Use Existing Footprint 2028 2038 2068 Facility Hangars and Terminal Facility 2.5 5 9 12 General Aviation Apron 2.5 5 10 10 Auto Parking (Landside) 2 4 7 10 Hangars and Terminal Facility 8.5 10 26 28 Large Aircraft Apron 18 18 36 36 Auto Parking (Landside) 6+ 6 16 17 Hangars and Terminal Facility 11 15 35 40 Apron 20.5 20 45 50 All Auto Parking (Landside) 8+ 10 23 27 TOTAL 39.5 45 103 117 RATIO OF TOTAL / 2018 FOOTPRINT 1 1.1 2.6 3.0 Source: WSP USA, 2018.

5.5.7 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER FACILITIES FAA personnel at the SAT ATCT and TRACON stated that their existing facilities would be adequate through the planning horizon (2038).

NAVIGATIONAL AIDS No navigational aids are anticipated to be required or replaced within the planning horizon.

5.5.8 AIRLINE CATERING FACILITIES [UNDER DEVELOPMENT]

5.5.9 GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT STAGING, STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITIES [UNDER DEVELOPMENT]

Page | 5-80 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

5.5.10 ENGINE MAINTENANCE RUN-UP FACILITY Options for maintaining the existing maintenance run-up facility will be explored in the Alternatives Development and Evaluation chapter.

5.5.11 COMPASS ROSE The FAA does not provide a standard radius for the compass rose that “varies depending on requirements of user aircraft”7. However, the SAT rose is compliant with the Army and Air Force criteria8. A facility of such size is usually suitable for small general aviation aircraft. Compatibility with aircraft depends on the procedure used for operating compass calibration (e.g., aircraft towed, etc.). Options for maintaining this facility will be explored in the Alternatives Development and Evaluation chapter.

5.5.12 AIRPORT PERIMETER FENCE AND SECURITY GATES Perimeter fencing intends to prevent unlawful intrusions on the AOA and prevent wildlife incursions. It shall achieve the needs of aviation security as specified by the TSA and those of the airport WHMP. Requirements on perimeter fencing for certified airports are provided by Title 14 CFR Part 139 on Airport Certification and Title 49 CFR Part 1542 on Airport Security. In particular, Part 139.335 specifies that “each certificate holder must provide fencing that meets the requirements of applicable FAA and TSA security regulations in order to prevent inadvertent entry to the movement area by unauthorized persons or vehicles.” Technical standards on fencing, video surveillance and detection systems are published by the TSA in the Airport Security Design and Guidelines and by the FAA in AC 150/5370-10H on Airport Construction Standards (Part 10 on Fencing). The SAT AOA SAT is entirely protected by perimeter fencing. Based on the TSA’s Airport Security Design and Guidelines, chain link fences are typically 7-foot-tall with one or more coils of stranded barbed wire on top, which may be angled outward at a 45-degree incline from the airside. Other types of fencing (e.g. vertical bar fencing) and alternate means are described. The March 2016 FAA Part 139 CertAlert on Recommended Wildlife Exclusion Fencing recommends a 10-foot-tall fence with 3-strand barbed wire outriggers. In some cases, an airport may be able to use an 8- foot fence with 3-strand barbed-wire outriggers, depending on the amount of deer activity in a local area. A visual check of the perimeter fencing at SAT reveals section with low fences that might not meet the TSA 7-foot or FAA 8-foot design standards. However, the newest section of perimeter fencing is fully compliant with the FAA and TSA standards and recommendations. The Airport has hired a consultancy firm (RS&H) to complete a perimeter fence assessment (to be completed in 2019).

7 Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, Chg. 1, Appendix 6 – Compass Calibration Pad, 2014. 8 Department of Defense, Unified Facilities Criteria 3-260-01, Airfield and Heliport Planning and Design, Section 6-11.5, pp. 166-167, November 2008. Page | 5-81 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

The perimeter fencing has multiple gates for providing access to the AOA to airport personnel, tenants and contractors. Most of these gates are on facilities or lots leased to airport tenants. These gates are open to pedestrians, vehicles or aircraft (e.g. Lewis Energy, M7 Aerospace, VT SAA). Access control is based on positive locking device, automated access control system (AACS), or electric gates with or without monitoring by security staff. Additionally, there are crash gates with locks that break when collided by vehicle bumpers, providing immediate access to the airfield for emergency services.

5.5.13 SUMMARY OF AIRPORT AND AIRLINE SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS

• Airport administration facilities: TBD • Airport Operations facilities: TBD • Catering facilities: TBD • Ground support equipment facilities: TBD

­ Staging ­ Storage ­ maintenance • FAA facilities: none • ARFF:

­ Vehicles: 0 or 1, based on class of existing vehicles ­ Stations: evaluate response times based on proposed airfield layouts • Airport maintenance facilities:

­ Existing: need an additional 6 acres, for a total of approximately 12 acres ­ 2028: need a total of approximately 16 acres ­ 2038: need a total of approximately 19 acres ­ 2068: need a total of approximately 36 acres • Fuel storage facilities (tanks footprint):

­ Existing: 1.3 acres ­ 2028: need a total of approximately 2.6 acres ­ 2038: need a total of approximately 3.2 acres ­ 2068: need a total of approximately 5.1 acres • Engine maintenance run-up pad: upgrade to accommodate the Boeing 747-8. • Airport perimeter fence: upgrade fencing to meet latest standards • Compass rose: maintain a compass rose when develop new airfield layouts

Page | 5-82 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

• MRO facilities:

­ Existing: 40 acres ­ 2028: need a total of approximately 45 acres ­ 2038: need a total of approximately 103 acres ­ 2068: need a total of approximately 117 acres

5.6 LANDSIDE FACILITIES This section documents the landside facility requirements developed as part of the SDP. Requirements were developed for the following landside elements: • Airport Roadways • Proposed Transit Connections to Regional Transit • Automobile Parking • Rental Car Facilities

5.6.1 AIRPORT ROADWAY ACCESS For the most part, the roadway network providing access to/from SAT is planned to remain primarily the same as it is today with a few exceptions according to TxDOT and the City of San Antonio. TxDOT has identified future improvements to US Highway 281, Loop 410, IH 10, and Loop 1604. While these improvements are not nearby the Airport, they serve traffic that travels to and from the Airport. More relevant improvements are currently being developed as part of a planning project for the US Highway 281/North Loop 410 interchange. Since this interchange is immediately adjacent to the Airport and provides access to a significant portion of Airport traffic, any improvements will help improve travel to and from the Airport in the future. A review of the TxDOT improvement plans indicate that what is proposed will most likely lead to increased capacity, as well as improved access. Additional details regarding the planned improvements are covered in subsequent sections. This chapter focuses on traffic conditions along the roadways identified in the Inventory of Existing Conditions. The expected traffic conditions of the study area intersections during the Years 2028 and 2038 is described in the following sections.

METHODOLOGY Understanding the future traffic growth within the study area, as well as within the region, plays an important role in assessing traffic conditions. For purposes of the SDP, growth rates along roadways within the study area were derived from two sources. The first source was the AAMPO travel demand model. The travel demand model (TDM) includes key roadways within the entire San Antonio region along with future land use and population growth for the Year 2040. Key transportation improvements that are categorized as funded are also included within the TDM.

Page | 5-83 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Growth rates along roadways within the study area ranged from –10% to +5% per year based on the TDM. The second source included a review of the expected growth in enplanements at SAT. As discussed in Chapter 3, Aviation Activity Forecasts, the anticipated growth rates (based on adjusted TAF) within the next 20 years will range from 1.6% to 1.9% per year. Future traffic flow conditions within the study area were analyzed based upon the intersections highlighted in the Inventory of Existing Conditions, as well as upon the volume/capacity (V/C ratio) for roadways within the study area. Both analyses require traffic volume as a key input. The next section highlights the development of future traffic volumes.

DEVELOPMENT OF TRAFFIC VOLUMES Two types of traffic volumes were used for purposes of assessing traffic flow. The first was average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, while the second is morning/afternoon (AM/PM) peak hour traffic volumes. Average Daily Traffic volumes were derived directly from the Year 2040 travel demand model and were used in calculating the future V/C ratios along roadways within the study area. The development of AM/PM peak hour volumes were necessary for the Year 2028 and 2038 intersection analysis. For intersections located outside of the main SAT ring road, the development of future peak hour volumes was based on the growth rates derived from the TDM. It should be noted that a minimum growth rate of 1% per year was used for intersections with derived growth rates below zero. A minimum growth rate of 2% per year was used for study area intersections along Dee Howard Way and Airport Boulevard. Figure 5-21 depicts the Year 2028 AM/PM peak hour volumes, while Figure 5-22 depicts the Year 2038 AM/PM peak hour volumes.

Page | 5-84 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Figure 5-21 | Year of 2028 Morning/Afternoon Peak Hour Volumes

Source: WSP USA, 2018.

Figure 5-22 | Year of 2038 Morning/Afternoon Peak Hour Volumes

Page | 5-85 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Source: WSP USA, 2018.

Page | 5-86 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT A future operational assessment of the study area intersections and roadways was also conducted and is summarized within this section. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that future passenger growth would occur at the existing terminal buildings. Future traffic to/from SAT would therefore primarily use the same roadways and travel through the same key study intersections. INTERSECTION ASSESSMENT The study area intersections were analyzed for Years 2028 and 2038. For the base case, no improvements were included in the Synchro 9 traffic models that were developed for both the AM and PM peak hours for each planning year. Table 5-40 includes a summary of the signalized intersection delay/LOS, while Table 5-41 includes a summary of the unsignalized intersection delay/LOS. Figures 5-23 and 5-24 depict a map of the LOS results at each of the study intersections. During the Year 2028, it is expected that only two signalized intersections degrade to a LOS E during either the AM or PM peak hour. During the year 2038, however, two signalized intersections degraded to LOS E, while four signalized intersections had increases in delay and thus are expected to operate at LOS F. Three of the five unsignalized intersections degraded to LOS E or F during both Years 2028 and 2038 . Additional details regarding these intersections are included in the next section. It should be noted that the delay values included in Table 5-40 do not include excessive queuing that is expected along the terminal roadways due to increases in the number of passenger pick- ups and drop-offs. The queueing is expected during peak times due to increases in traffic and cut-through traffic, due to the expected congestion.

Page | 5-87 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Table 5-40 | Signalized Intersection Delay and Level of Service Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Control Delay (seconds/vehicle)/Level of Service Existing – Year 2018 Year 2028 Year 2038 Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon IntersectIntersectionion Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour U.S. 281 NB Frontage Road 41.9/D 40.9/D 53.5/D 65.9/E 65.2/E 108.5/F at Nakoma Drive* U.S. 281 SB Frontage Road at 18.3/B 18.6/B 21.0/C 20.9/C 28.5/C 26.8/C Nakoma Drive* U.S. 281 SB Frontage Road at 17.9/B 14.7/B 92.1/F 17.5/B 388.1/F 39.7/D Rhapsody Drive U.S. 281 NB Frontage Road 15.1/B 36.3/D 15.6/B 40.6/D 16.1/B 46.0/D at Isom Road* U.S. 281 SB Frontage Road at 23.2/C 22.8/C 23.6/C 23.5/C 24.0/C 24.4/C Isom Road* U.S. 281 NB Frontage Road 20.1/C 49.9/D 21.4/C 71.5/E 21.7/C 88.6/F at Jones Maltsberger Road* U.S. 281 SB Frontage Road at 19.8/B 35.5/D 21.6/C 36.9/D 21.0/C 35.4/D Jones Maltsberger Road* U.S. 281 SB Frontage Road at 0.3/A 0.3/A 0.4/C 0.4/A 0.4/C 0.4/A Dee Howard Way Loop 410 EB Frontage Road 19.5/B 33.9/C 19.8/B 38.5/D 20.2/C 48.7/D at Jones Maltsberger Road* Loop 410 WB Frontage Road 17.6/B 17.2/B 17.7/B 18.5/B 17.8/B 19.9/B at Jones Maltsberger Road* Loop 410 EB Frontage Road 34.0/C 27.2/C 33.3/C 27.8/C 32.9/C 28.5/C at Airport Boulevard* Loop 410 WB Frontage Road 25.0/C 32.4/C 24.7/C 28.9/C 24.9/C 40.3/D at Airport Boulevard* Wurzbach Parkway EB at 3.5/A 21.1/C 4.8/A 23.3/C 18.2/B 36.2/D Wetmore Road Wurzbach Parkway WB at 21.6/C 41.8/D 27.3/C 92.3/F 38.6/D 115.9/F Wetmore Road Wetmore Road at Bitters 25.9/C 16.5/B 54.3/D 18.3/B 92.1/F 21.9/C Road* Wetmore Road at Broadway 26.3/C 41.8/D 35.8/D 70.4/D 55.5/E 128.3/F Street* Nakoma Drive at Skyplace 8.1/A 11.4/B 8.4/A 12.8/B 8.6/A 13.5/B Boulevard* Jones Maltsberger Road at 11.0/B 7.3/A 10.8/B 7.6/A 10.5/B 8.1/A Paul Wilkins Street Dee Howard Way at John 8.2/A 5.2/A 8.4/A 4.5/A 8.5/A 4.4/A Saunders Road* Airport Boulevardat 9.5/A 16.5/B 10.8/B 18.8/B 12.7/B 22.5/C Northern Boulevard* Airport Boulevardat Dee Howard Way/Terminal 15.0/B 12.2/B 16.5/B 13.5/B 19.5/B 24.5/C Boulevard* Notes: EB – eastbound NB – northbound SB - southbound WB – westbound Delay and Level of Service determined by Highway Capacity Manual 2010 methodology. *Delay and Level of Service determined by Highway Capacity Manual 2000 methodology Source: WSP USA, 2018.

Page | 5-88 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Table 5-41 | Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Delay and Level of Service Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Control Delay (seconds/vehicle)/Level of Service Existing – Year 2018 Year 2028 Year 2038 Control Morning Peak Afternoon Morning Peak Afternoon Morning Peak Afternoon Intersection Type Hour Peak Hour Hour Peak Hour Hour Peak Hour Loop 410 EBFR at AWSC 23.1/C 108.2/F 42.6/E 185.2/F 63.4/F 269.4/F Wetmore Road Wetmore Road at TWSC (EB) 47.6/E 36.9/E 54.5/F 194.4/F 96.5/F 264.4/F DHL Driveway Wetmore Road at TWSC (EB) 54.7/F 109.0/F 72.8/F 157.6/F 92.3/F 309.7/F FedEx Driveway Paul Wilkins Street TWSC (SB) 10.6/B 12.4/B 10.9/B 13.0/B 11.1/B 13.6/B at John Cape Road U.S. 281 NBFR at TWSC (WB) 10.6/B 13.4/B 10.6/B 13.4/B 10.6/B 13.4/B Dee Howard Way* U.S. 281 SBFR at TWSC (SB) 36.2/E 111.6/F 81.1/F 312.5/F 241.1/F 649.8/F Loop 410 WBFR* Notes: AWSC – All-Way STOP-Controlled TWSC – Two-Way STOP-Controlled EB – eastbound FR – frontage road NB – northbound SB - southbound WB – westbound Delay and LOS determined by Highway Capacity Manual 2010 methodology. *Delay and LOS determined by Highway Capacity Manual 2000 methodology Source: WSP USA, 2018.

Page | 5-89 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Figure 5-23 | Year 2028 Morning/Afternoon Intersection Level of Service

Source: WSP USA, 2018.

Page | 5-90 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Figure 5-24 | Year 2038 Morning/Afternoon Intersection Level of Service

Source: WSP USA, 2018.

Page | 5-91 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

AIRPORT ACCESS ROADWAYS The future Year 2040 Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratios were also calculated based on the forecasted daily traffic volume derived from the AAMPO Travel Demand Model (TDM). There were a few key locations where updates to the forecasted traffic volumes were required due to the future airport enplanement forecasts. The roadways included were along Dee Howard Way, Airport Boulevard, and the terminal roadways. It is expected that these roadways will reach capacity by early 2030’s if the expected growth rates occur. The Year 2040 revised V/C ratios related to these roadways are included below: • Dee Howard Way – As Dee Howard Way approaches Airport Boulevard, the V/C ratios are at capacity, ranging from 0.85 to 1.0. • Airport Boulevard – V/C ratios are at capacity ranging from 0.85 to 1.0 between I-410 and Dee Howard Way. • Terminal Roadways – V/C ratios are over capacity ranging from 1.0 to great than 1.0 between I-410 and Dee Howard Way. Traffic flow along these roadways will be critical during peak times and thus adding capacity will be vital as growth in passenger enplanements at the terminal increases. Development of a new dedicated “entrance” to the airport will improve access, and may alleviate some of congestion due to the current constraints along these roadways. This will be examined in Phase 2. CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC For purposes of this section, there are two types of traffic traveling along Airport Boulevard/Dee Howard Way that are critical to traffic flow and circulation on the airport site. The first type of vehicle traffic are passengers and airport tenant employees and the second type is the cut- through traffic related to general non-airport trips that begin or end in the vicinity of the airport site. Non-airport cut-through traffic is primarily a result of increased traffic volumes and congestion levels along US 281 and I-410 as well as nearby local streets. Both of these types of traffic exist today and are projected to increase in the future, resulting in more congestion and longer queues at critical intersections along airport roadways. With increases in peak hour non-airport cut- through traffic percentages (currently 10.4% to 33.2%) in addition to the expected increases in peak hour passenger pickup and drop-off, excessive queuing beyond the Airport Boulevard/Dee Howard Way intersection is likely, possibly resulting in spillback to adjacent freeway interchanges on US 281 and I-410. Traffic using Skyplace Boulevard as a cut-through route between Jones Maltsberger Road and Wurzbach Parkway east of US 281 was determined to be 2.3% to 11.5% of total traffic. However, the traffic volumes on Skyplace Boulevard are currently very low. While there is an anticipated increase in regional traffic using these routes, the current volumes are low enough that the increase in cut-through traffic will likely not adversely impact operations of that roadway, nor degrade operations at the intersections of Skyplace Boulevard with Nakoma Drive and Wurzbach Parkway. REGIONAL ROADWAYS As discussed earlier, improvements to the US Highway 281/North Loop 410 interchange are in the planning stages and will provide increased capacity for airport patrons. It is important to note that these improvements are expected to be completed within the next ten years and are

Page | 5-92 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements still preliminary and subject to change. Improvements related to additional lane capacity were included in the calculation of V/C ratios. The key improvements consist of the following: • Dee Howard Way at US Hwy 281 northbound Frontage Road – install concrete median separating through lanes from turning lanes. • Loop 410 eastbound Frontage Road at Jones Maltsberger Road – widen eastbound approach to install a right turn lane, two through lanes and left turn lane. • US Hwy 281 northbound Frontage Road at Jones Maltsberger Road – remove northbound entrance ramp to US Hwy 281. Construct extension of 2-lane direct connector ramp from Loop 410. • US Hwy 281 northbound Frontage Road at Isom Road – reconfigure northbound lanes to allow for two shared through lanes. • US Hwy 281 southbound Mainlanes at Nakoma – construct Collector-Distributor ramp (CD) for the Nakoma entrance ramp and the San Pedro Exit ramp. • US Hwy 281 Frontage Roads at Nakoma – reconfigure eastbound lanes at northbound Frontage Road. • Loop 410, McCullough to West Avenue – selected ramp reversals • Loop 410 westbound Frontage Road at Blanco Road – reconfigure lanes on westbound approach. • Loop 410 at San Pedro Interchange – Widen southbound lanes on San Pedro, lane reconfiguration on the westbound approach, implement triple left-turn on the eastbound approach. • Loop 410 at McCullough Interchange – close McCullough to northbound and southbound through movements.

Figure 5-25 depicts the Year 2040 V/C ratios for all key roadways near the airport. Even with the improvements highlighted above, several roadways will be nearing or over capacity. It is important to note that additional capacity will be necessary to provide airport patrons a positive (LOS C or D) experience and to ensure the reliability needed in the transportation system. The SA Tomorrow Multimodal Transportation Plan included future needs based on scenario planning using the AAMPO 2040 travel demand model. The Capacity and Connectivity Scenario considered all programed improvements included in the AAMPO 2040 plan along with a full build- out of the City of San Antonio Major Thoroughfare Plan. This included roadways that were not built to the full number of lanes as well as those that were not yet constructed. The results, as reported in the SA Tomorrow Multimodal Transportation Plan, showed congestion levels were still present even after adding approximately $3B in capacity from the Major Thoroughfare Plan. Figure 5-26 shows the congested corridors/segments around the airport that would remain over or near capacity after this investment.

Page | 5-93 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Figure 5-25 | Year of 2040 V/C Ratios with Preliminary Proposed US 281/I-410 Interchange Improvements

Source: WSP USA, 2018.

Page | 5-94 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Figure 5-26 | SA Tomorrow Multimodal Transportation Plan: Scenario 2 Connectivity and Capacity 2040 Modeling Results

SAT Airport

I-410

Source: WSP USA, 2018.

Page | 5-95 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

FACILITY REQUIREMENTS This section focuses on potential improvements to both airport-related intersections and roadways based on no major changes to the overall roadway network. The improvements primarily include capacity enhancements to increase capacity rather than roadway realignments. The next sections briefly highlight short term improvements that are expected to improve traffic flow. AIRPORT INTERSECTIONS Although there were no intersections along Dee Howard Way or Airport Boulevard that were expected to operate at LOS E or F during the 2028 or 2038 horizon years, there are short-term improvements that should be considered to reduce delay and further improve traffic flow and safety. The first consists of conducting a traffic signal timing study based on current traffic volumes to improve both cycle lengths and split times to minimize delay during peak conditions. The second is focused on modifications to the Dee Howard Way/Airport Boulevard intersection. As volumes continue to increase at this intersection, an additional northbound right turn lane may be needed and thus may need to be controlled as part of the existing traffic signal due to the traffic volume destined for the garages and terminal curb front. The actual modifications will vary depending on the future proposed terminal building layouts. It should be noted that the congestion expected along the terminal roadways could lead to excessive queuing at the Airport Boulevard/Dee Howard Way intersection, thus leading to LOS F during peak times. Additional review of the terminal roadways is necessary in Phase 2 of the SDP, to consider future terminal buildings. AIRPORT ACCESS ROADWAYS Based on the V/C ratios that are expected along Dee Howard Way, Airport Boulevard, and Terminal Roadways, they are likely to require additional lanes along with the intersection improvements described above. The actual roadway enhancements will vary depending on other facility improvements considered by SAT. Creating a new dedicated entrance to the airport to improve overall access to the terminals and parking garages should be a key consideration in Phase 2. REGIONAL ROADWAY NETWORK There are several intersections along the regional roadway network within the next 20-year horizon that will need modifications to achieve LOS D or better. Several roadways will also need capacity improvements to reduce the V/C ratios within acceptable ranges. The following includes a summary of the key locations. • I-410 eastbound Frontage Road/Wetmore Road – Construct a traffic signal. • US 281/Nakoma Drive – New interchange to increase capacity due to high turning volumes. • Wurzbach Parkway/Wetmore Road – Additional turn lanes. • Wetmore Rd/Broadway Street – Additional turn lanes. • U.S. 281 southbound Frontage Road/Loop 410 westbound Frontage Road- Construct a traffic signal.

Page | 5-96 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

• Each of the study area unsignalized intersections along Wetmore need improvements, which should consist of additional turn or through lanes. • Each of the key roadway segments along US 281, I-410, Wetmore Road, and a few segments along Wurzbach Parkway need additional capacity. Additional through lanes and or interchange improvements will be necessary to reduce the V/C ratios. It should be noted that there are several Planned Roadway Improvements over the next 20 years within the San Antonio Region will improve access to/from SAT. These improvements range from minor improvements to large roadway reconstruction projects. Although there are no major roadway improvements within the immediate airport study area, with the exception of the US 281/I-410 interchange, the regional roadway network will benefit from the planned improvements. Figure 5-27 depicts a map of the Planned Improvements identified by AAMPO. TRANSIT INTEGRATION VIA Metropolitan Transit (VIA) has identified corridors that will serve future rapid transit in the Vision 2040 Plan as shown in Figure 5-28. The North-Central corridor includes a connection to the airport and to downtown San Antonio. Rapid transit can consist of several different modes. While VIA has not yet identified which mode would be proposed for the North-Central corridor, emphasis has focused on dedicated right-of-way. On April 10, 2018, Mayor Ron Nirenberg announced the formation of a non-profit, ConnectSA, with Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff. ConnectSA is tasked with working with VIA to implement a multimodal transit plan that would be put before voters by the end of 2019. Members of ConnectSA come from the leaders in both the public and private sectors. ConnectSA will use much of the work done for VIA’s Vision 2040 long-term plan and SA Tomorrow’s Multimodal Transportation Plan, to develop a complete system plan to bring before voters. More recently, ConnectSA was directed to provide a report in December 2018 addressing route recommendations for corridors, “trackless transit” options, funding sources and adaptive technology. Trackless transit uses driverless vehicles resembling light rail cars, in dedicated right- of-way. The success of a connected transit system will require a transit hub located on or adjacent to the airport. The transit hub will provide connections to downtown directly or via shuttle service to the downtown link. VIA recently completed construction on a Park-N-Ride facility in Stone Oak that provides express service to downtown. Direct access to an HOV lane on the main lanes of US Highway 281 is being constructed by TxDOT as part of the US 281/I-410 interchange improvement project. While the HOV lane is currently planned only to travel a short distance, it could be the first leg in a dedicated transit lane to downtown.

Page | 5-97 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Figure 5-27 | Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Planned Improvements

SAT Airport

Source: WSP USA, 2018.

Page | 5-98 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Figure 5-28 | VIA Vision 2040 Plan – Rapid Transit Corridors

SAT Airport

Source: WSP USA, 2018.

Page | 5-99 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

ACCOMMODATING FUTURE CHANGES TO MODE CHOICE AND TECHNOLOGY The advances in automated vehicle/connected vehicle technology may influence vehicle ownership, and ridesharing significantly in the future and, as a result, increase capacity and reduce congestion. Opinions vary greatly regarding how much these changes will result in substantial reductions to vehicle ownership and when this will occur. Also, the advancement of driverless technology may actually increase trips by providing access to those who are currently unable to drive. The increase in trips may absorb or even exceed the additional capacity created from the technology. It is anticipated that driverless vehicles will be deployed in fleets and operated similar to existing TNCs at a lower cost to the current TNC pricing structure due to the elimination of the cost of the driver. The industry indicates that initial deployments in small operating areas within smaller cities will proceed in 2019. However, arriving at the point of serving airports implies operating a full regional network of driverless TNCs on highways in many varying conditions. This type of network is not imminent and future projections cannot determine when such a network will be in place.

5.6.2 AUTOMOBILE PARKING As passenger travel increases at SAT, the demand for short-term and long-term parking is anticipated to also increase. Estimating future parking demand provides a basis for planning additional parking supply and dedicating the needed funding to construct the parking infrastructure. There are three categories of parking supply at SAT: on-site public parking facilities, off-site privately operated public parking facilities, and employee parking facilities. In addition to passenger and employee parking, SAT provides parking for the pick-up, drop-off, and storage of vehicles to facilitate rental car operations at the CONRAC facility. The following sections provide a description of each category and provide the assumptions used to derive future parking demand.

SUMMARY OF PARKING SUPPLY AND OCCUPANCY SAT provides publicly accessible passenger parking facilities in the form of one short-term parking garage, a long-term parking garage, and surface economy lots. In addition to SAT-operated passenger parking facilities, several privately-operated parking facilities exist near the Airport. These lots provide shuttle service to the Airport terminals. These privately-operated surface lots provide parking supply for airport passengers and, as such, have a role in meeting existing and future parking demand at SAT. Lastly, parking facilities for employees and Transportation Network Companies (TNC)/rideshare/taxi services are also provided. The available capacity of each of the passenger parking lots was measured in June of 2018, along with the peak occupancy, and is summarized in Table 5-42. The long-term parking garage experienced the highest utilization at almost 92 percent. As parking facilities near 90 to 95 percent utilization, they are considered “at- capacity”, since drivers must circulate for long periods searching for available parking spaces.

Page | 5-100 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Table 5-42 | Total 2018 Parking Supply and Peak Occupancy Parking Facility Type Parking Supply 2018 Peak Occupancy % Utilization Short-term Garage 1,221 920 75.3% Long-term Garage 5,596 5,124 91.6% Economy Surface Lots 1,797 1,227 68.3% Private Surface Lots 1,951 1,351 69.2% Employee Parking 934 805 86.2% Taxi/Rideshare/Cell Phone Staging 530 242 45.7% Consolidated Rental Car Staging 1,959 N/A N/A Notes: Peak parking occupancy was determined for each facility and represents the peak parking demand that occurred during the week of June 8-14, 2018. During that week, peak parking demand occurred on various weekdays depending on the lot. Passenger parking facilities experienced peaks during the afternoon hours. Source: WSP USA, 2018.

FUTURE PARKING DEMAND PROJECTION METHODOLOGY Generally, parking demand for any airport facility is correlated to airport passenger load. However, other factors should be considered, such as pricing structure of parking facilities, availability of transit, taxi, TNC services and ease of access, and proximity to terminal facilities. It should be noted that parking demand is highly elastic, meaning that increases in prices for the parking facilities can lead to a corresponding reduction in parking demand, and vice versa. For the purposes of this analysis, parking demand is based on the growth in passenger load and assumes that relative pricing structure does not change for future years. Competition from other modes may result in changes in pricing structure for airport parking, which would result in significant changes to parking demand. Future parking demand for this study was derived from the existing parking generation rates observed during the week of June 8 through June 14, 2018. This calculation yields the parking demand for each facility per 100 daily passengers enplaned during the peak month of 2018. The rates of parking generation that were used to determine future parking demand projections are shown in Table 5-43. These parking generation rates were then multiplied by the future passenger volume forecasts, as shown in Table 5-44. Existing (2018) passenger load was estimated from observed travel patterns utilizing SAT data on annual and peak monthly enplanements. Passenger growth for the forecast years were developed as described in previous sections, and were developed based on regional demographic growth projections and the ability of regional airport facilities to meet the growth in demand. Forecasted rate of passenger growth is presented in 5-, 10-, 20-, and 50-year increments. The 5-, 10-, and 20-year projections are required by FAA guidelines. For the 20- and 50-year projections, additional “high growth” scenarios were evaluated, which assumed an accelerated rate of passenger growth. The information presented in Table 5-43 reflects parking generation rates per 100 daily passengers, as observed at SAT during the peak passenger travel period in June 2018. The Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Parking Generation, 4th Edition, also provides data recorded at over 16 airport sites across North America. ITE derived an average total parking

Page | 5-5-101 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements generation rate of 21 to 78 parked vehicles per daily 100 passengers enplaned. The 85th percentile rate was determined to be 61 parked vehicles per daily 100 passengers emplaned, while the SAT-observed parking generation rate for total passenger parking in June 2018 was about 57 parked vehicles per 100 daily passengers emplaned (see Table 5-43). The ITE Parking Generation manual states that while parking demand was stable for a majority of the year, the peak travel days during the year (cited as Christmas, Thanksgiving, Spring Break, and the end of school year) represented a significant increase in parking demand over the average parking demand that was observed throughout the rest of the year. Table 5-43 | Parking Generation per Passenger by Facility Type Parking Generation 2018 Peak 2018 Average Daily Rate (# of parked Parking Passengers vehicles per 100 Parking Facility Type Demand (peak month) daily passengers) Short-term Garage 920 6.11 Long-term Garage 5,124 34.05 Economy Surface Lots 1,227 8.15 Private Surface Lots 1,351 15,050 8.98 Total Passenger Parking 8,622 57.29 Employee Parking 805 5.35 Taxi/Rideshare/Cell Phone Staging 242 1.61 Source: WSP USA, 2018.

Table 5-44 | Forecast Peak Hour Passengers for San Antonio International Airport High Passenger Standard Passenger Growth Rate Growth Rate Scenario Scenario 2018 2023 2028 2038 2038 2068 2018 Average Daily Passengers 15,050 17,560 19,250 22,170 25,580 44,570 (peak month) % Growth over 2018 --- 16.7% 27.9% 47.3% 70.0% 196.1% Source: WSP USA, 2018.

Using the forecasts for passenger load, the parking generation for future year scenarios were calculated by facility type and are presented in Table 5-45. Because rideshare and taxi services also correlate highly with passenger load, the same parking generation methodology (as a function of passenger volume) was used to project demand in rideshare and taxi staging. A similar methodology was utilized to determine employee parking requirements, based on the anticipated passenger growth for future years. As passenger growth occurs, a similar growth will be expected in the number of people the airport employs, from security to gate attendants and so on. Because many of these positions are dependent on the number of passengers the Airport is serving, passenger growth was assumed to be the basis by which employee parking demand was projected. To determine employee parking generation, a parking generation rate was calculated as a function of employees per passenger served by the Airport. Employee parking demand will therefore grow proportionally to passenger growth. Using these assumptions, a forecast for future

Page | 5-5-102 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements year parking demand was developed. Table 5-45 demonstrates the increase in parking demand by number of spaces that will be needed for each analysis year. If the assumption that passenger growth corresponds to parking demand at a similar rate, SAT will need over 20,000 parking spaces to meet peak demand in year 2068. Table 5-45 | Peak Parking Demand Forecasts by Parking Facility

Peak Demand (# of spaces) High Passenger Parking Standard Passenger Growth Rate Growth Rate Supply Scenario Scenario (# of Location spaces) 2018 2023 2028 2038 2038 2068 Short Term Garage 1,221 920 1,074 1,177 1,355 1,564 2,724 Long Term Garage 5,596 5,124 5,979 6,555 7,546 8,709 15,173 Green/Red Lot 2,347 1,277 1,490 1,634 1,881 2,170 3,781 Total SAT Passenger Parking Supply 9,164 7,321 8,543 9,366 10,782 12,443 21,678 Purple Lot (Employee) 934 805 939 1,030 1,186 1,368 2,384 Orange Lot - Taxicab Staging* 297 118 138 151 174 201 349 TNC (rideshare) Staging* 83 72 84 92 106 122 213 Cell Phone Lot 1 (closed July, 2018) 83 52 ------Cell Phone Lot 2** 150 --- 61 67 77 88 154 Total SAT Parking 10,711 8,368 9,764 10,704 12,327 14,222 24,782 Airport Security (North)* 835 793 793 793 793 793 793 Airport Security (South)* 854 427 1288 1334 1412 1505 2018 Budget Long Term Parking* 262 131 153 168 193 223 388 Total Private Passenger Parking* 1,951 1,351 2,234 2,295 2,398 2,521 3,199 GRAND TOTAL 12,662 9,719 11,998 12,998 14,725 16,743 27,981 Notes: *Rideshare staging and private parking lot supply and 2018 measurements of Peak Demand were estimated from on-site observation (May, 2018) and aerial imagery (January, 2018). **Red Lot and Cell Phone Lot 2 were not open during the June, 2018 data collection period. Cell Phone parking was moved to the Cell Phone Lot 2 location after data collection, in August, 2018. Source: WSP USA, 2018.

A similar breakdown of the parking demand as a percentage of parking supply or percent utilization is presented in Table 5-46. While SAT currently provides 9,164 parking spaces that are about 80 percent utilized during peak periods, the increase in passenger load will drive the parking demand to exceed parking supply by 2023 within a 5-year time period, unless additional supply is provided or demand is reduced. Similarly, employee parking demand is projected to exceed supply within a 5-year period. The forecast for Taxi staging indicates that facility will have sufficient capacity through the year 2068. However, TNC parking demand will exceed its supply prior to 2023. Since some parking facilities will exceed capacity sooner than others, it may be necessary to continue to evaluate peak utilization and manage parking demand by shifting parking supply from one facility to another to accommodate the growth in the most efficient manner possible. Other

Page | 5-5-103 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements methods of managing parking demand include introducing or increasing the frequency of transit service. Table 5-46 | Peak Parking Utilization Forecast by Parking Facility

Peak Demand (as % of supply) High Passenger Standard Passenger Growth Rate Growth Rate Parking Scenario Scenario Supply Location (# of spaces) 2018 2023 2028 2038 2038 2068 Short Term Garage 1,221 75.3% 88.0% 96.4% 111.0% 128.1% 223.1% Long Term Garage 5,596 91.6% 106.8% 117.1% 134.8% 155.6% 271.1% Green/Red Lot 2,347 71.1% 82.9% 90.9% 104.7% 120.8% 210.4% Total SAT Passenger Parking Supply 9,164 79.9% 93.2% 102.2% 117.7% 135.8% 236.6% Purple Lot (Employee) 934 86.2% 100.5% 110.3% 127.0% 146.5% 255.2% Orange Lot - Taxicab Staging* 297 39.7% 46.5% 50.8% 58.6% 67.7% 117.5% TNC (rideshare) Staging* 83 86.7% 101.2% 110.8% 127.7% 147.0% 256.6% Cell Phone Lot 1 (closed July, 2018) 83 62.7% ------Cell Phone Lot 2** 150 --- 40.7% 44.7% 51.3% 58.7% 102.7% Total SAT Parking 10,711 78.1% 91.2% 99.9% 115.1% 132.8% 231.4% Airport Security (North)* 835 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% Airport Security (South)* 854 50.0% 150.8% 156.2% 165.3% 176.2% 236.3% Budget Long Term Parking* 262 50.0% 58.4% 64.1% 73.7% 85.1% 148.1% Total Private Passenger Parking* 1,951 69.2% 114.5% 117.6% 122.9% 129.2% 164.0% GRAND TOTAL 12,662 76.8% 94.8% 102.7% 116.3% 132.2% 221.0%

Notes: *Rideshare staging and private parking lot supply and 2018 measurements of Peak Demand were estimated from on-site observation (May, 2018) and aerial imagery (January, 2018). **Red Lot and Cell Phone Lot 2 were not open during the June, 2018 data collection period. Cell Phone parking was moved to the Cell Phone Lot 2 location after data collection, in August, 2018. Source: WSP USA, 2018.

An additional calculation was derived to illustrate the amount of acreage currently used for parking facilities to serve both on- and off-site Airport traffic. Existing acreage was calculated from the approximate footprint of each garage or surface lot. By dividing the number of parking spaces provided by the acreage for each facility, the density of spaces per acre for each facility type was determined. To calculate the acreage needed to meet the projected future parking demand (as shown in Table 5-45), the facility density was multiplied by the forecasted number of spaces required for each future year scenario. Table 5-47 demonstrates the forecasted acreage for future year scenarios based on facility type. For this analysis, it was assumed that the current parking densities will continue for future conditions (for example, short-term parking will continue to be served by a parking garage).

Page | 5-5-104 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Table 5-47 | Approximate Forecasted Acreage Needed for Parking Supply by Facility

Parking Needed Acreage to Meet Parking Demand at Current Density** Facility High Passenger Growth Existing Density Standard Passenger Growth Rate Scenario Rate Scenario # of Acreage (spaces/ Location Levels Provided acre)* 2018 2023 2028 2038 2038 2068 Short Term Garage 2 Levels 11 111 8.3 9.7 10.6 12.2 14.1 24.5 (5.5 (+1 level) (+1 level) (+3 levels) acres/level) Long Term Garage 5 Levels 44 127 40.3 47.0 51.5 59.3 68.5 119.3 (8.8 (+1 level) (+1 level) (+2 levels) (+3 levels) (+9 levels) acres/level) Green/Red Lot Surface 15.1 155 10.7 12.5 13.7 15.8 18.2 31.8 (+0.7 acres) (+3.1 acres) (+16.7 acres) Total SAT Passenger Parking Acreage 70 59 69 76 87 101 176 Purple Lot (Employee) Surface 9.5 98 8.2 9.6 10.5 12.1 13.9 24.2 (+0.1 acres) (+1.0 acres) (+2.6 acres) (+4.4 acres) (+14.7 acres) Orange Lot - Taxicab Staging Surface 2.5 119 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.9 (+0.4 acres) TNC (rideshare) Staging Surface 2.5 33 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.2 3.7 6.4 (+0.3 acres) (+0.7 acres) (+1.2 acres) (+3.9 acres) Cell Phone Lot 1 (closed July, 2018) Surface 0.8 104 0.5 ------Cell Phone Lot 2 Surface 1.4 107 --- 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.4 Total SAT Parking Acreage 87 71 83 91 105 121 211 Airport Security (North)*** Surface 7.5 111 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 Airport Security (South)*** Surface 7.2 119 3.6 10.9 11.2 11.9 12.7 17.0 Budget Long Term Parking*** Surface 2.1 125 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.8 3.1 Total Private Passenger Parking*** 17 12 19 20 21 22 27 GRAND TOTAL 104 83 102 111 125 143 238 Notes: *Parking spaces per acre was calculated by dividing the total existing facility acreage by the existing parking supply (number of spaces) provided by that facility. **Needed acreage assumes that there are no changes in the Parking Density by Facility. If, for future parking demand, additional parking acreage is needed, the quantity of additional space is denoted within parentheses. ***For private parking facilities, the additional parking acreage needed (if any) was not calculated. Source: WSP USA, 2018.

Page | 5-105 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Table 5-47 demonstrates that to accommodate the forecasted parking demand for future scenarios, an additional 21 acres of land will be needed for the 2038 baseline scenario, with an additional 134 acres needed to accommodate the 2068 high-growth scenario. The acreage can be supplied by either garage facilities or surface lots. It is noted, again, that parking demand is highly contingent on a number of factors including pricing structures, vehicle ownership, future mode shifts away from the existing “park on-site” model, as presented in the following section.

5.6.3 RENTAL CAR Rental cars are used overwhelmingly by visitors to the region. In December 2017, all rental car (RAC) operations were moved to a ConRAC located across from the terminals. The ConRAC is connected by a pedestrian bridge located between Terminal A and Terminal B, which has eliminated RAC shuttles from the terminal curbs. Counters for the 13 rental car companies are located at the bridge level with 1,960 combined ready/return and RAC storage spaces on three parking levels. There are three levels of quick- turn facilities (QTF) adjacent to the ConRAC parking, which provide fueling, washing and light maintenance. This minimizes the movements of RAC vehicles as they are returned and prepared for another rental. Short-term public parking occupies 1,220 spaces within the structure on Levels 1 and 2. The public parking facility has separate entrances and Exit Control from the rental cars facilities. Hourly RAC pick-up and return counts were requested from all the on-airport RACs for the week of Friday, June 8 through Thursday June 14, 2018. Findings are listed below: • Daily totals are illustrated in Figure 5-29, and show a typical RAC activity pattern for a mixed business/leisure destination airport. Pick-ups are strongest on Mondays and fall off during the middle of the week, with another uptick for the weekend. • Returns are strongest on Thursday and Friday (business related), and Sunday (leisure related). • Hourly activity is illustrated in Figure 5-30 for the busiest days of the survey week. Pick- ups are typically strongest after the first waves of flight arrivals in mid- to late morning and again late afternoon, but did not coincide with the peak flight arrivals late at night, which typically represent residents returning home. • Returns occurring during the overnight hours corresponded to the early morning departures peak. There were also high numbers of returns in early to mid-afternoon, corresponding to the mid- to late afternoon secondary departures peaks.

Page | 5-106 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Figure 5-29 | Rental Car Activity Daily Totals

Source: WSP USA, 2018.

Page | 5-5-107 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

Figure 5-30 | Rental Car Activity Pickups and Returns

Source: WSP USA, 2018.

Page | 5-5-108 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

For terminal area planning, RAC facilities to be considered are typically the RAC customer service counters and the ready/return (R/R) spaces. Other RAC vehicle storage and service centers are typically located outside the immediate terminal area. However, the location of the ConRAC adjacent to the terminals allows to combine all RAC functions. It is assumed that if the terminal complex remains within walking distance of the ConRAC, the ConRAC will continue to provide customer service counters, R/R spaces and QTF. If the demand for R/R spaces grows, additional vehicle parking would be relocated to another portion of the Airport. The following planning factors were assumed for SAT: • Customer service counters are both a function of passenger volume, the number of RACs and degree of pre-booking/automation. The ConRAC’s large counter and queuing/waiting area is assumed to have sufficient flexibility to accommodate changes in future operations. • Typically, return spaces are provided for 1 to 1.5 hours of peak activity. This depends on the ‘peakiness’ of the return volumes, the proximity to a QTF and available personnel. Both the busiest 1.5 hours during mid-day Friday and the overnight returns had approximately 350 returned vehicles. Comparing this to the estimated 2,040 peak hour enplanements results in a ratio of 0.17 spaces per design hour enplanement. However, since the R/R spaces are divided into three floors and further segregated by company, the planning factor was increased by 30 percent to 0.22 return spaces per design hour enplanement. • Typically, ready car spaces (pick-ups) are provided for up to two hours of peak activity. The controlling factors are like those of return spaces, except that RACs usually need to have a wider selection of vehicles types to meet customer demands. The busiest two hours on the peak day of the week accounted for approximately 480 vehicles. Comparing this to the estimated 2,030 peak hour deplanements results in a ratio of 0.23 spaces per design hour deplanement. A 30 percent multiple company factor was also applied, resulting in a planning factor of 0.30 ready spaces per design hour deplanement.

Table 5-48 includes the estimated R/R spaces requirements.

Table 5-48 | Rental Car Facilit y Requirements Recommended Facilities

Existing Facilities Base Year Forecast Year 2018 2023 2028 2038 2038 High 2068 Rental Car Ready/Return Spaces

Return Car Spaces incl below 450 530 550 630 690 1,200 spaces Ready Car Spaces incl below 610 710 740 850 940 1,630 spaces Combined R/R Spaces 1,960 /1 1,060 1,240 1,290 1,480 1,630 2,830 spaces (separate lots) Notes: 1/ Existing ConRAC spaces include vehicle storage R/R – Ready/Return Source: WSP USA, 2018.

Page | 5-5-109 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

5.6.4 TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS IN AIRPORT LANDSIDE FACILITIES The advances in automated vehicle/connected vehicle (AV/CV) technology may influence vehicle ownership, ridesharing, and parking demand significantly in the future. Opinions vary greatly regarding how much these changes will reduce the need for parking and result in substantial reductions to vehicle ownership and when this will occur. With the increase in pace of development in technologies that drive demand for certain modes of transportation, it is likely that the forecasted parking demand will shift in future years, requiring further analysis. Strongly correlated to airport parking demand is the recent proliferation of Transportation Network Company (TNC) pickups and drop offs from airport terminals. As with taxi operations, passengers choose this mode to avoid parking or car rental at airport facilities. TNCs such as Uber and Lyft provide additional convenience and availability over traditional taxicab service, resulting in cheaper fares and decreased usage of parking facilities provided by SAT and other private lots. It is anticipated that driverless vehicles will be deployed in fleets and operated similar to existing TNCs at a lower cost to the current TNC pricing structure due to the elimination of the cost of the driver. If this advancement comes to pass in future scenarios, it will likely further degrade demand for parking at airport facilities. The industry indicates that initial deployments in small operating areas within smaller cities will proceed in 2019. However, arriving at the point of serving airports implies operating a full regional network of driverless TNCs on highways in many varying conditions. This type of network is not imminent and future projections cannot determine when such a network will be in place. Similarly, future scenarios may also need to accommodate the possibility of the deployment of automated passenger aerial drones (also known as Urban Air Mobility or UAM), potentially operated by TNCs, at airport drop off and pick up locations, which could impact passenger, rideshare, and taxi parking demand. Ultimately, decisions regarding installation of new parking facilities should be made based on time-to-return measures. For example, if a 50-year bond is required to pay down a parking structure, it would be a riskier situation than a 20-year bond. Similarly, airports can proactively develop parking structures for the potential of repurposing them in a few different ways: • Pick-up/Drop-off Facilities: If there is much higher pick-up/drop-off demand (because parking demand has dropped off in this scenario), portions of existing parking facilities could be repurposed for staging pick-up/drop-off operations, with a possible ability to place a surcharge on those operations, depending on market conditions. • Automated Vehicle (AV) Fleet Staging and Storage: Regional AV fleets will have to operate out of somewhere. Whoever is operating these fleets will need places to stage these fleets, including charging electric vehicles, washing, repairing, etc. By designing the supporting infrastructure for that (water leads, conduit, etc.), the assets could be potentially repurposed to support these fleets. Airports may be particularly attractive for this, as they have large parking facilities that are not (typically) in central cities, and they have good freeway access, etc.

Page | 5-5-110 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

• Automated Passenger Aerial Drone Staging and Storage: In the event that TNCs operate aerial drones for pick-up and drop-off, those operations will need a clear area on the top of some structure, within walking distance of passenger terminals, similar to today’s helicopter operations. Depending on future utilization of parking facilities, parking garage structures or surface facilities could be repurposed to provide the needed surface area for these operations (see section 5.4.3). Airports such as Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS) are testing electric autonomous vehicles. The AUS shuttle, with seating for six and room for other passengers to stand, has a pre-programmed route between the passenger terminal and the rental car/ground transportation sites. Finally, as public transportation becomes more available, convenient and frequent, the need for parking at airport facilities will also decrease. Incorporation of a transit hub with service to/from downtown will further reduce parking demand, and adjustments to the parking forecasts presented in this report will need to be made to account for that reduced demand. The short-term evidence points to a significant amount of traffic being diverted from traditional taxi or park-and-fly modes to the Rideshare mode or to public transportation. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to derive long-term trends from short-term data, considering the uncertainty on the future of the urban mobility market. It is the recommendation of this report, therefore, that these trends continue to be evaluated every 5 years, or in the event that a decision must be made on future airport parking facilities.

5.6.5 SUMMARY OF LANDSIDE REQUIREMENTS

• Airport roadways:

­ Airport intersections: . Intersections along Dee Howard Way and Airport Boulevard: improvements to reduce delay and improve traffic flow and safety . Dee Howard Way/Airport Boulevard intersection: additional northbound right turn lane as traffic volumes continue to increase

­ Airport access: . Additional lanes on Dee Howard Way, Airport Boulevard, and terminal roadways

­ Regional roadways: . I-410 eastbound Frontage Road/Wetmore Road: construct a traffic signal . US 281/Nakoma Drive: new interchange . Wurzbach Parkway/Wetmore Road: additional turn lanes . Wetmore Rd/Broadway Street: additional turn lanes

Page | 5-5-111 December 2019 - DRAFT

San Antonio International Airport Master Plan Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements

. U.S. 281 southbound Frontage Road/Loop 410 westbound Frontage Road: construct a traffic signal. . Study area unsignalized intersections along Wetmore need improvements, which should consist of additional turn or through lanes. . Key roadway segments along US 281, I-410, Wetmore Road, and a few segments along Wurzbach Parkway: additional through lanes and/or interchange improvements

­ Transit integration: . Transit hub on or adjacent to the Airport • Automobile parking:

­ 2038 baseline: additional 21 acres ­ 2068 high-growth: additional 134 acres • Rental car: existing facilities can accommodate demand through the planning horizon

5.7 SUMMARY OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Based on the long-term facility requirements for accommodating the demand at the 2068 horizon, it is feasible to fit an expanded airport at the existing location. The 50-year high demand can be made to fit. Indeed, the requirements presented in this chapter account for about 2,000 acres – conservatively rounding up the different functional requirements. The existing airport property covers about 2,600 acres, with plans for acquiring an additional 370 acres based on the 2017 SAT Airport Layout Plan. However, depending on the preferred alternative(s) recommended and especially the option chosen for the runway system (i.e. a 2-runway system with simultaneous operations capability), the following actions could be required to achieve this +50-year development: • Land acquisition • Relocation of Salado Creek • Closure of Runway 4-22 in the 20-year/50-year timeframe • Relocation of tenant activities The facility requirements analysis and the feasibility of accommodating the future SAT airport at the 2068 horizon were presented to the Airport Strategic Development Committee (ASDC) of the City of San Antonio on October 11, 2018. The ASDC validated these findings and recommended to the Mayor that Phase II of the Strategic Development Plan to focus exclusively on the detailed development of the Airport at its existing site. The Mayor approved this recommendation on October 31, 2018. Consequently, the alternatives analysis will not consider options for relocating the Airport elsewhere.

Page | 5-5-112 December 2019 - DRAFT